Measurement of Cl<sup>−</sup> : Br<sup>−</sup>Ratios in the Porewater of Clay-Rich Rocks—A Comparison of the Crush-and-Leach and the Paper-Absorption Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Characterization of porewater chemistry in low-permeability, clay-rich rocks provides insights into solute transport mechanisms and the origin and residence time of porewater. Extraction of porewater for chemical quantification is challenging, and several methods have been applied including squeezing, advective displacement, crush and leach, and a relatively new technique that extracts porewater by absorption into a cellulosic paper by capillary action. Here we compare porewater Cl − and Br − mass ratios from samples using the paper-absorption and crush-and-leach techniques. Samples were obtained from Upper Ordovician shales in the Michigan Basin in Ontario, the Opalinus Clay at the Mont Terri Rock Laboratory in Switzerland, and the Upper Ordovician Lorraine Group shale in southern Quebec. The data display consistent and reproducible differences among methods for Cl − and Br − mass ratios, with the paper-absorption method producing systematically lower Cl − : Br − ratios. The observed differences in Cl − : Br − ratios are attributed primarily to anion exclusion effects which are stronger for Br − than for Cl − , resulting in higher Br − concentrations in the largest pores that are preferentially sampled by the paper-absorption technique. In addition, calculations suggest that Cl − is more effective than Br − in forming ion pairs and clusters with neutral or positive charge which can enter the diffuse double layer. This causes a further decrease in the Cl − : Br − ratios for the mobile water. One important message from this work is that different extraction methods should not be expected to converge on a unique porewater Cl − : Br − ratio because each method reflects different proportions of the interlayer, diffuse double layer, and mobile fractions of porewater.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it