Assessing the applicability of Emiliania huxleyi coccolith morphology as a sea‐surface salinity proxy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Culture experiments were used to assess the applicability of Emiliania huxleyi coccolith morphology as a palaeo‐sea‐surface salinity (SSS) proxy. Coccolith morphology was dependent on salinity over a range reflecting present day marine conditions; both coccolith size and the number of coccolith elements increased linearly with increasing salinity. Using regression analysis, the effect of salinity on coccolith morphology was compared to those previously observed in sediment core‐top and plankton data. No significant differences were found between the slopes of these data, suggesting that salinity is the primary control on E. huxleyi coccolith size and element number in the ocean. However, the intercepts of the culture data were significantly higher. A combination of experimental and literature analysis indicated that temperature and nutrients were unlikely to be the causes of this discrepancy. Literature analysis also highlighted that coccolith size data from marginal environments displayed different intercepts to those from the open‐ocean data. This suggests that discrete morphotypes exist in these marginal locations. We, therefore, recommend that the original E. huxleyi coccolith morphology palaeo‐SSS transfer function requires further evaluation before being routinely applied.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".