MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2778883156 · doi:10.7185/geochemlet.1746

Iodine proxy evidence for increased ocean oxygenation during the Bitter Springs Anomaly

2017· article· en· W2778883156 on OpenAlexafffund
Wanyi Lu, Sarah Wörndle, Galen P. Halverson, Xiaoli Zhou, Andrey Bekker, R H Rainbird, Dalton Hardisty, Timothy W. Lyons, Zheng‐Tian Lu

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemical Perspectives Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGroundwater and Isotope Geochemistry
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNASA Astrobiology InstituteNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsProxy (statistics)OxygenationAnomaly (physics)GeologyEnvironmental scienceInternal medicineMedicineMathematicsStatisticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Neoproterozoic Bitter Springs Anomaly (BSA; 810-800 Ma) is characterised by an 8 ‰ negative δ 13 C excursion and is coeval with multiple indicators of increasing oxygenation of the ocean and atmosphere.Here, we use carbonate iodine contents to provide the first constraints on the evolution of local upper ocean redox conditions spanning the BSA.Iodine speciation in seawater is strongly redox sensitive, and carbonates precipitated proximal to O 2 -depleted water record low I/(Ca + Mg).Data from the Akademikerbreen Group of Svalbard show a major rise of I/(Ca + Mg) during the recovery phase of the BSA.Other relatively high I/(Ca + Mg) values are also associated with rising δ 13 C throughout the section.Combined with existing palaeoredox proxies (e.g., Cr and S isotopes), our new iodine data most likely reflect an oxygenation event.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemical Perspectives LettersSame topicGroundwater and Isotope GeochemistryFrench-language works237,207