Experimental Production of Clay Rims by Macrobiotic Sediment Ingestion and Excretion Processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Using controlled experiments that simulate interlayered sand and mud in marine conditions, it is shown that clay rims develop on sand grains during the digestive processes of the polychaete worm Arenicola marina. The clay-size minerals also undergo accelerated weathering and mineral authigenesis. Synthetic mud (crushed slate) and clean, eolian sand of known composition and texture were horizontally layered in experimental and control tanks. Natural seawater was added to these tanks along with several A. marina. Fecal casts were collected at regular time intervals, and these were analyzed texturally using electron microscopy and mineralogically using X-ray diffraction (XRD). Total bioturbation of the sand and mud layering by A. marina was achieved after only eight weeks of feeding activity. Sand grains in the fecal casts developed clay-mineral rims, a feature absent in the original material and not found in the control tanks. Thin, composite, curvilinear structures, assumed to be detached clay rims, were also produced. Over a period of many months the synthetic mud proved to be unchanged in the control tank, but it was significantly different in the fecal casts from the experimental tank that contained the worm A. marina. The original minerals were degraded and new authigenic clay minerals formed. It is postulated that a combination of low pH and the biologically active microenvironment in the guts of annelid worms may radically accelerate mineral dissolution and clay-mineral precipitation processes during digestion. It is likely that mucous produced by the worms not only led to the aggregation of the fine-grained material into fecal casts but also adhered the fine sediment onto sand grains, thus creating clay-mineral rims. In this case the solid part of the clay rim will be a combination of the primary material (crushed slate) and the neoformed clay minerals.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".