The Removable-Cap Suction Corer: An Inexpensive and Durable Device To Extract Unconsolidated, Wet Sediments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: Obtaining sediment samples in unconsolidated sediment presents many challenges. The locale substrate can be soft, penetration of the sediment may be limited, preservation of the sedimentary fabric may be incomplete, and extraction of the sample may be difficult. Some of these issues are overcome with vibracore or suction-core techniques. Vibracoring requires heavy, bulky, and relatively expensive equipment which is costly to ship to the remote field-study locations and difficult to use in muddy settings such as muddy tidal flats or coastal marshes. The Van der Staay suction corer (Van de Meene et al. 1979) is cost-effective and fixes logistical problems, but sample extraction has to be done in the field. The TESS-1 suction corer (Mendez et al. 2003) was designed on the basis of the Van der Staay suction corer and allows recovering intact sediment samples for further laboratory analysis, but it requires custom machinery with more man-hours and uses small-diameter core tubes with a high possibility of disturbance of sedimentary structures in unconsolidated and waterlogged deposits. Here we present a new removable-cap suction corer that is inexpensive to construct, light in weight, highly portable, and can be designed to extract any core diameter. The corer can be used for coarse- and fine-grained wet sediments (tidal flats, riverine and estuarine bars, coastal marshes) and shallow subaqueous environments (lakes, rivers, shallow shoreface).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".