A SAMPLING STRATEGY FOR RECENT AND FOSSIL BRACHIOPODS: SELECTING THE OPTIMAL SHELL SEGMENT FOR GEOCHEMICAL ANALYSES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent and fossil brachiopod shells have a long record as biomineral archives for (palaeo)climatic and (palaeo)environmental reconstructions, as they lack or exhibit limited vital effects in their calcite shell and generally are quite resistant to diagenetic alteration. Despite this, only few studies address the issue of identifying the best or optimal part of the shell for geochemical analyses. We investigated the link between ontogeny and geochemical signatures recorded in different parts of the shell. To reach this aim, we analysed the elemental (Ca, Mg, Sr, Na) and stable isotope (δ18O, δ13C) compositions of five recent brachiopod species (Magellania venosa, Liothyrella uva, Aerothyris kerguelensis, Liothyrella neozelanica and Gyphus vitreus), spanning broad geographical and environmental ranges (Chile, Antarctica, Indian Ocean, New Zealand and Italy) and having different shell layer successions (two-layer and three-layer shells). We observed similar patterns in the ventral and dorsal valves of these two groups, but different ontogenetic trends by the two- and three-layer shells in their trace element and stable isotope records. Our investigation led us to conclude that the optimal region to sample for geochemical and isotope analyses is the middle part of the mid-section of the shell, avoiding the primary layer, posterior and anterior parts as well as the outermost part of the secondary layer in recent brachiopods. Also, the outermost and innermost rims of shells should be avoided due to diagenetic impacts on fossil brachiopods.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".