Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Honeycomb weathering occurs in two environments in Late Cretaceous and Eocene sandstone outcrops along the coastlines of south‐west Oregon and north‐west Washington, USA, and south‐west British Columbia, Canada. At these sites honeycomb weathering is found on subhorizontal rock surfaces in the intertidal zone, and on steep faces in the salt spray zone above the mean high tide level. In both environments, cavity development is initiated by salt weathering. In the intertidal zone, cavity shapes and sizes are primarily controlled by wetting/drying cycles, and the rate of development greatly diminishes when cavities reach a critical size where the amount of seawater left by receding tides is so great that evaporation no longer produces saturated solutions. Encrustations of algae or barnacles may also inhibit cavity enlargement. In the supratidal spray zone, honeycomb weathering results from a dynamic balance between the corrosive action of salt and the protective effects of endolithic microbes. Subtle environmental shifts may cause honeycomb cavity patterns to continue to develop, to become stable, or to coalesce to produce a barren surface. Cavity patterns produced by complex interactions between inorganic processes and biologic activity provide a geological model of ‘self‐organization’. Surface hardening is not a factor in honeycomb formation at these study sites. Salt weathering in coastal environments is an intermittently active process that requires particular wind and tidal conditions to provide a supply of salt water, and temperature and humidity conditions that cause evaporation. Under these conditions, salt residues may be detectable in honeycomb‐weathered rock, but absent at other times. Honeycomb weathering can form in only a few decades, but erosion rates are retarded in areas of the rock that contain cavity patterns relative to adjacent non‐honeycombed surfaces. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".