An Improved Cleaning Protocol for Foraminiferal Calcite: HyPerCal – A New Practice for Micropaleontological and Paleoclimatic Proxies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paleoclimatic and paleoceanographic studies routinely rely on the usage of foraminiferal calcite through faunal, morphometric and physico-chemical proxies. The application of such proxies presupposes the extraction and cleaning of these biomineralized components from ocean sediments in the most efficient way, a process which is often labor intensive and time consuming. In this respect, in this study we performed a systematic experiment for planktonic foraminiferal specimen cleaning using different chemical treatments and evaluated the resulting data of a Late Quaternary gravity core sample from the Aegean Sea. All cleaning procedures adopted here were made on the basis of their minimum potential bias upon foraminiferal proxies, such as the faunal assemblages, degree of fragmentation, stable isotope composition (δ18O and δ13C) and/or Mg/Ca ratios that are frequently used as proxies for surface-ocean climate parameters (e.g., sea surface temperature, sea surface salinity). Six different protocols were tested, involving washing, sieving, and chemical treatment of the samples with hydrogen peroxide and/or sodium hexametaphosphate (Calgon ®). Single species foraminifera shell weighing was combined with high-resolution Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and synchrotron X-ray Microtomography (SμCT) of the material processed by each of the cleaning protocols, in order to assess the decontamination degree of specimen’s ultrastructure and interior. It appeared that a good compromise between time and cleaning efficiency is the simultaneous treatment of samples with a mixed hydrogen peroxide and Calgon solution, while the most effective way for an almost complete decontaminate of the calcareous components from undesirable sedimentary material is a two-step treatment - initially with hydrogen peroxide and subsequently with Calgon solutions.
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 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".