MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308801236 · doi:10.1111/sed.13059

Keratose sponges in ancient carbonates – A problem of interpretation

2022· article· en· W4308801236 on OpenAlexaff
Fritz Neuweiler, Stephen Kershaw, Frédéric Boulvain, Michał Matysik, Consuelo Sendino, Mark A. S. McMenamin, Axel Munnecke

Bibliographic record

VenueSedimentology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpongeSponge spiculeGeologyCalcitePaleontologyCarbonateSedimentary structuresTaphonomySedimentary depositional environmentMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reports of diverse vermiform and peloidal structures in Neoproterozoic to Mesozoic open marine to peritidal carbonates include cases interpreted to be keratose sponges. However, living keratose sponges have elaborate, highly elastic skeletons of spongin (a mesoscopic end‐member of a hierarchical assemblage of collagenous structures) lacking spicules, thus have poor preservation potential in contrast to the more easily fossilized spicule‐bearing sponges. Such interpreted fossil keratose sponges comprise diverse layered, network, amalgamated, granular and variegated microfabrics of narrow curved, branching, vesicular–cellular to irregular areas of calcite cement, thought to represent former spongin, embedded in microcrystalline to peloidal carbonate. Interpreted keratose sponges are presented in publications almost entirely in two‐dimensional (thin section) studies, usually displayed normal to bedding, lacking mesoscopic three‐dimensional views in support of a sponge body fossil. For these structures to be keratose sponges critically requires conversion of the spongin skeleton into the calcite cement component, under shallow‐burial conditions and this must have occurred prior to compaction. However, there is no robust petrographic–geochemical evidence that the fine‐grained carbonate component originated from sponge mummification (automicritic body fossils via calcification of structural tissue components) because in the majority of cases the fine‐grained component is homogenous and thus likely to be deposited sediment. Thus, despite numerous studies, verification of fossil keratose sponges is lacking. Although some may be sponges, all can be otherwise explained. Alternatives include: (i) meiofaunal activity; (ii) layered microbial (spongiostromate) accretion; (iii) sedimentary peloidal to clotted micrites; (iv) fluid escape and capture resulting in bird's eye to vuggy porosities; and (v) moulds of siliceous sponge spicules. Uncertainty of keratose sponge identification is fundamental and far‐reaching for understanding: (i) microfacies and diagenesis where they occur; (ii) fossil assemblages; and (iii) wider aspects of origins of animal clades, sponge ecology, evolution and the systemic recovery from mass extinctions. Thus, alternative explanations must be considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations31
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSedimentologySame topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of FossilsFrench-language works237,207