Biogeochemical reappraisal of the freshwater–seawater mixing‐zone diagenetic model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract First proposed nearly half a century ago, the mixing‐zone model of dolomitization enjoyed a brief stay in the limelight before falling out of favour. Despite extended past criticism, arguments that build on its current validity are presented and discussed. The coastal mixing zone can be seen as an aquifer system exhibiting marked physicochemical gradients, reflective of the admixture of low salinity freshwater and seawater sources with variable redox potentials. This perspective requires a more holistic look at the mixing zone, not only as a gradient of major element concentrations, but also as the locus of enhanced subsurface redox sensitive reactions that occur at the pore‐space scale within a moveable diagenetic front. Combined genomic and isotopic data indicate that an active subsurface biosphere thrives in the mixing zone. This could facilitate Mg2+ dehydration, generate alkalinity, consume protons and mobilize potentially catalyzing ions (i.e. Mn and Zn), which are all low temperature factors thought to promote dolomite formation from soluble precursors. In the updated model, the advective mix of fluids with contrasting composition modulate a range of biogeochemically induced mineral dissolution and reprecipitation reactions. Biotic and abiotic interactions between these fluids affect carbonate equilibrium and result in dissolution of soluble aragonitic and calcitic phases, while dolomite precipitates (as cement) and neomorphic replacement. The secondary dolomite often exhibits compositional heterogeneity and contentious δ18O signatures indicative of re‐equilibration. The role of manganese, zinc, intermediate sulphur species and ammonia are far from being fully understood, nor is their fingerprint in ancient deposits. Application of in situ spectroscopic imaging techniques, clumped and metal isotope analyses, as well as a more extended use of traditional approaches, such as sulphur isotopes, are poised to open many opportunities to further explore the biogeochemistry of this diagenetic environment and how it relates to platform dolomitization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".