MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317600350 · doi:10.1130/g50658.1

Unravelling biotic versus abiotic processes in the development of large sulfuric-acid karsts

2023· article· en· W4317600350 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicKarst Systems and Hydrogeology
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKarstAbiotic componentCaveSulfuric acidSulfurGeologySulfateCarbonateGeochemistryEnvironmental chemistryMineralogyEarth scienceEcologyChemistryPaleontologyBiologyInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In carbonate rocks, natural production of sulfuric acid can form karstic cavities. Where both epigenic and hypogenic speleogeneses have taken place, these processes are challenging to constrain, especially if there is more than one source of sulfur involved. Thanks to an innovative approach coupling geomorphology with measurements of multiple sulfur, oxygen, and strontium isotopes, our study of two French Pyrenean caves quantifies the relative influence of both microbial and thermochemical processes implied in sulfuric-acid production. Multiple sulfur isotopes reveal that sulfate speleothems derived from a mixing of microbial H2S in hydrothermal water and fossil thermochemical H2S previously trapped within the cave host rock. We quantify the percentages of biotic and abiotic sulfuric-acid speleogeneses that have taken place in these caves, paving the way for similar studies of other sulfuric-acid caves where usually only microbial activity has been 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.220 · 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