Total organic carbon and the preservation of organic-walled microfossils in Precambrian shale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Much of our understanding of early eukaryote diversity and paleoecology comes from the record of organic-walled microfossils in shale, yet the conditions controlling their preservation are not well understood. It has been suggested that high concentrations of total organic carbon (TOC) inhibit the preservation of organic fossils in shale, and although this idea is supported anecdotally, it has never been tested. Here we compared the presence, preservational quality, and assemblage diversity of organic-walled microfossils to TOC concentrations of 346 shale samples that span the late Paleoproterozoic to middle Neoproterozoic in age. We found that fossil-bearing samples have significantly lower median TOC values (0.32 wt%, n = 189) than those containing no fossils (0.72 wt%, n = 157). Preservational quality, measured by the loss of surface pattern, density of pitting, and deterioration of wall margin, decreases as TOC increases. Species richness negatively correlates with TOC within the ca. 750 Ma Chuar Group (Arizona, USA), but no relationship is observed in other units. These results support the hypothesis that high TOC content either decreases the preservational quality or inhibits the preservation of organic-walled microfossils altogether. However, it is also possible that other causal factors, including sedimentation rate and microbial degradation, account for the correlation between fossil preservation and TOC. We expect that as TOC varies in space and time, so too does the probability of finding well-preserved fossils. A compilation of 13,940 TOC values spanning Earth history suggests significantly higher median TOC levels in Mesoproterozoic versus Neoproterozoic shale, potentially biasing the interpreted pattern of increased eukaryotic diversity in the Tonian.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".