Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microorganisms are implicated in a wide array of geochemical processes of importance to the clay sciences; a point that is highlighted in special issues of journals such asGeochimica et Cosmochimica Acta(2004, Vol. 68, no. 15) andClays and Clay Minerals(2005, Vol. 53, no 6). Life and geochemistry often overlap at the micron scale; i.e., that of a clay mineral, as organisms seek energy and substrates on which to exist and grow. Organisms can only work within the realm of thermodynamic reality. However, as is becoming increasingly evident, the ability of microorganisms to affect fundamental parameters such as pH and redox potential and to strongly affect reaction kinetics can be tied to ecological factors, most likely involving complex feedback. Studies of microbial-mineral-metal interactions have provided substantive evidence for the role of microorganisms in shaping metal fate and transport (Islam et al. 2004;Holden and Adams 2003;Ehrlich 2002). As yet, there is no conceptual foundation that links microbial ecology, metabolism and geochemistry; but new tools are emerging that are leading to a more unified model of microbial biogeochemistry, including interactions with clays and clay minerals. This chapter provides a basic framework for investigating biogeochemical processes, and sets the stage for more detailed chapters on Methods for Investigating Microbial-Mineral Interactions. This chapter begins with basic discussion of geomicrobiology with an emphasis on bacteria and mineral (particularly clay) interactions, and ends with a detailed ‘case study’ of a field investigation of geomicrobiologic processes in acid rock drainage.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".