Comparing Rhizon samplers and centrifugation for pore‐water separation in studies of the marine carbonate system in sediments
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
Abstract An accurate description of the carbonate system in pore waters is valuable in studies involving the degradation of sedimentary organic matter, recrystallization of calcium carbonate minerals, calculations of mineral saturation state, and cycling of ions affected by pH. Here, we analyze water chemistry of pore water extracted using centrifugation and Rhizon samplers from hemipelagic sediments in the Gulf of Aqaba, Red Sea, and a shallow salt marsh from Norfolk, England. In both study areas, the data are internally consistent for each pore‐water separation technique, but the measured isotopic composition of the dissolved inorganic carbon (δ 13 C [DIC] ) differs between the two techniques. We performed laboratory experiments that show that both Rhizons and centrifugation are prone to degassing of CO 2 enriched with 12 C. We suggest that during sampling with Rhizons, air fills the voids left by extracted pore water; combined with the membrane's design to exclude air, some of the aqueous CO 2 diffuses into these air bubbles instead of the sampler. Rhizons produce reliable calcium, strontium, manganese, and barium concentration data when soaked in deionized water and then flushed with the sample immediately prior to sampling. However, pore‐water extractions with Rhizons are less reliable for analyses of pH and δ 13 C [DIC] . Centrifugation produces reliable carbonate chemistry and major element data when tubes are fully filled without headspace and sealed tightly. Working in CO 2 low/free atmosphere (e.g., N 2 glovebox) enhances the chance of losing CO 2 from the sample in both sampling techniques due to increased negative gradient of CO 2 between the core and its surrounding.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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