Diatoms as indicators of coastal paleoenvironments and relative sea-level change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Since nineteenth century naturalists identified salinity as a major determinant of diatom distribution, the remains of these organisms have become popular paleoenvironmental indicators for coastal deposits. A variety of problems in coastal geology were tackled using diatom-based methods, covering fields such as stratigraphy, the study of coastal processes, paleogeography, sea-level and climate change, tectonics, natural hazard assessment and archeology. This review highlights some of the major prospects and problems of paleoenvironmental diatom research on former depositional environments and sedimentation conditions in the coastal zone, as well as its contribution to the study of relative sea-level change and other processes affecting coastal genesis. For several reasons, e.g., the early recognition of important sea-level variations and coastline changes relating to glacial/interglacial cycles, the projected impact of possible future sea-level rise on coastal lowlands, the comparability of the fossil biotic record to contemporaneous observations, and the development of high-resolution dating methods – such research has focused mainly on the Quaternary and the Holocene in particular. Relatively few studies reached further back in time (e.g., Burckle & Akiba, 1978; Harwood, 1986; Pickard et al., 1986; Tawfik & Krebs, 1995). This account therefore also deals primarily with the most recent geological time window, where techniques and applications are most refined. Intended as a brief introduction only, completeness is not attempted. Some closely related topics, such as the ecology of marine–littoral diatoms, salinity calibration, estuarine settings and archeological contexts are treated more in detail elsewhere in this volume.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".