The architecture of Recent brachiopod shells: diversity of biocrystal and biopolymer assemblages in rhynchonellide, terebratulide, thecideide and craniide shells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biological hard tissues are a rich source of design concepts for the generation of advanced materials. They represent the most important library of information on the evolution of life and its environmental conditions. Organisms produce soft and hard tissues in a bottom-up process, a construction principle that is intrinsic to biologically secreted materials. This process emerged early on in the geological record, with the onset of biological mineralization. The phylum Brachiopoda is a marine animal group that has an excellent and continuous fossil record from the early Cambrian to the Recent. Throughout this time interval, the Brachiopoda secreted phosphate and carbonate shells and populated many and highly diverse marine habitats. This required great flexibility in the adaptation of soft and hard tissues to the different marine environments and living conditions. This review presents, juxtaposes and discusses the main modes of mineral and biopolymer organization in Recent, carbonate shell-producing, brachiopods. We describe shell tissue characteristics for taxa of the orders Rhynchonellida, Terebratulida, Thecideida and Craniida. We highlight modes of calcite and organic matrix assembly at the macro-, micro-, and nano-scales based on results obtained by Electron Backscatter Diffraction, Atomic Force Microscopy, Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy and Scanning Transmission Electron Microscopy. We show variation in composite hard tissue organization for taxa with different lifestyles, visualize nanometer-scale calcite assemblies for rhynchonellide and terebratulide fibers, highlight thecideide shell microstructure, texture and chemistry characteristics, and discuss the feasibility to use thecideide shells as archives of proxies for paleoenvironment and paleoclimate reconstructions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".