Archival biogenic micro- and nanostructure data analysis: Signatures of diagenetic systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present data in brief article provides additional data and information to our research article "Micro- and nanostructures reflect the degree of diagenetic alteration in modern and fossil brachiopod shell calcite: a multi-analytical screening approach (CL, FE-SEM, AFM, EBSD)" [1] (Casella et al.). We present fibre morphology, nano- and microstructure, as well as calcite crystal orientations and textures found in pristine, experimentally altered (hydrothermal and thermal), and diagenetically overprinted brachiopod shells. Combination of the screening tools AFM, FE-SEM, and EBSD allows to observe a significant change in microstructural and textural features with an increasing degree of laboratory-based and naturally occurring diagenetic alteration. Amalgamation of neighbouring fibres was observed on the micrometre scale level, whereas progressive decomposition of biopolymers in the shells and fusion of nanoparticulate calcite crystals was detected on the nanometre scale. The presented data in this article and the study described in [1] allows for qualitative information on the degree of diagenetic alteration of fossil archives used for palaeoclimate reconstruction.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".