Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pyrite framboids are densely packed, generally spherical aggregates of submicron-sized pyrite crystals. In this study, a survey was made of framboid size distributions in recently deposited sediments from euxinic (Black Sea; Framvaren Fjord, Norway; Pettaquamscutt River Estuary, Rhode Island, USA), dysoxic (Peru Margin), and oxic (Wallops Island, Virginia, USA; Great Salt Marsh, Delaware, USA) environments. Pyrite framboids in sediments of modern euxinic basins are on average smaller and less variable in size than those of sediments underlying dysoxic or oxic water columns. Down-core trends indicate framboid size distribution is a sediment property fixed very early during anoxic diagenesis, generally within the top few centimeters of burial. Size distributions in modern sediments are comparable with those in ancient sedimentary rocks, evidence that framboid size is preserved through advanced stages of diagenesis and lithification. It is proposed that where secondary pyrite growth is limited, as to preserve primary pyrite textures, framboid size distribution may be used to indicate whether fine-grained sedimentary rocks were deposited under oxic or anoxic conditions. The Crystal Size Distribution Theory relates framboid size to growth time and rate. On the basis of this theory, the characteristic smaller sizes of framboids in sediments of modern euxinic basins reflect shorter average growth times relative to oxic or dysoxic environments. In euxinic environments, framboid nucleation and growth occurs within anoxic water columns, and growth times are, on average, shorter because of hydrodynamic effects than when framboid nucleation and growth occurs within anoxic sediment porewaters underlying oxic water columns. A maximum framboid growth time of 0.4 years is indicated for framboids forming in the water columns of euxinic basins.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.987 | 0.990 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".