Conservation of a museum megamouth shark specimen by changing its preservative from aqueous ethanol to aqueous glycerol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Western Australian Museum’s iconic 5.2-m megamouth shark (Megachasma pelagios) was relocated 20 km from Perth to the Maritime Museum in Fremantle for treatment in an exhibition gallery. A 70% ethanol solution was diluted to 16% before the glass lids of the fiberglass tank were removed to facilitate removal of the heavy shark. A custom-made stainless steel storage and exhibition tank containing 8,000 L of 30% glycerol solution was prepared inside the exhibition space prior to the arrival of the specimen. Portholes in the top sections provided access points to record the density of the solution using a digital densitometer. The density fell linearly with the logarithm of the immersion time. Equilibration was achieved after the solution showed no change in density for a period of 2 months. To increase the glycerol concentration, 2,000 L of the solution were decanted into storage tanks before the same volume of pure glycerol was added. This process was repeated four times to reach a final level of 62% during the 2.5-year conservation program. The color and flexibility of the shark improved and dehydration wrinkles from ethanol storage were significantly reduced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".