Nanoscale trace-element zoning in pyrite framboids and implications for paleoproxy applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Pyrite framboids (spherical masses of nanoscale pyrite) are among the earliest textures of pyrite to form in sediments. It has been proposed that their trace-element (TE) contents can be used to track the TE composition of the water column in which they formed. However, it is not clear how these TEs are associated with the framboidal pyrite grains. For instance, it is important to know whether they are incorporated uniformly or are enriched in different regions of the framboid. We used high-resolution scanning transmission electron microscopy to identify chemical zoning within pyrite framboids. We found that initial, nanoscale pyrite euhedral crystals, which make up the volumetric majority of the framboids, are covered/infilled by later pyrite that templates on the earlier pyrite. Further, this later pyrite is enriched in TEs, suggesting that many TEs are incorporated in pyrite relatively late (during early diagenesis; not in the water column). This observation suggests that although chemical analyses of pyrite framboids may provide ocean-water chemistry trends through time, the details are complex. Specifically, the TEs found in pyrite may be linked to adsorption onto organic matter, detrital material, and authigenic minerals such as Fe- and Mn-oxide phases followed by desorption in the sediments or release via dissolution and incorporation into pyrite as overgrowths on the initial nanoscale euhedral crystals that make up framboids. While the use of pyrite chemistry to understand past ocean conditions remains promising, and even diagenetic additions may not preclude the utility of pyrite for reconstructing ancient ocean conditions, care must be taken in interpretations because the end concentration may be influenced by diagenesis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".