The impact of burning on the structure and mineral composition of bat guano
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Here we addressed the question of whether burning of guano produces a characteristic suite of morphological changes and/or unique mineralogical products. The changes observed in our experimental burning of guano (both fresh and decayed) included colour change (blackening), grain size and morphological change (grain size generally reduced, morphology rendered generally less distinct), alteration of minerals by dehydration (e.g., gypsum to anhydrite, brushite to whitlockite), and production of new minerals or compounds (e.g., augelite, bayerite, giniite, graphite, oldhamite, strontium apatite, tridymite). The key morphological feature we found that may be diagnostic of burning was severe damage to crystals from rapid dehydration (cracks and striations, leading to eventual fragmentation). The key mineralogical feature we found was production of graphite. The high temperature exotic minerals that were produced (giniite, augelite, tridymite, oldhamite) were all found not to be high temperature obligate. Evidence gleaned from the literature suggests that a great number of the minerals associated with high temperatures can also be synthesized in low temperature settings such as weathering or microbial action (exemplified in the extremely complex biology and biochemistry of decaying guano). While the presence of any one of these minerals is not diagnostic of fire, it could be argued that the suite taken as a whole is moderately strong evidence for burning. In future studies, the chemistry of carbon aromaticity may prove to be the best diagnostic test for pyrolysis. A survey of the conditions under which documented spontaneous ignition occurs leads us to conclude that spontaneous ignition of guano inside a cave is an extremely unlikely event, and any suggestion/assertion to this effect should be rigorously supported.
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) | 0.003 | 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".