Multimodal Mass Spectrometry Imaging (MSI) of Archean and Jurassic Geologic Samples
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current geochemical analytical techniques such as gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS and $G\acute{C}GC-MS$) can effectively determine the composition and structure of the organic biosignatures within a sample but cannot resolve the spatial distribution of organic biosignatures within rocks or sediments. The spatial distribution can be used to determine the character of the organic biosignatures [1], which can be indigenous (deposited with host rocks), non-indigenous (incorporated after deposition via fluid migration), or contaminant. Determining the character of organic biosignatures is critical for ancient samples [2] and will be critical if organics are observed in samples returned from Mars [3].Fs-LDPI-MS has the ability to map organic compounds across the surface of samples at 2 - 10 μm lateral resolution. Furthermore, fs-LDPI-MS can be used to carry out multiple analyses in the same location for micron-scale analysis of previously buried material [4]. We used fs-LDPI-MS to examine a ~164 million year old organic-rich mudstone from SW England (14.2 wt. % total organic carbon) [5] and determined the spatial distribution of likely indigenous components buried below potentially contaminated surface layers.We then used ToF-SIMS to re-analyze the mudstone to directly compare ToF-SIMS to fs-LDPI-MS datasets, and to analyze a series of ~2.7 billion year old geologic samples from Timmins, ON, CA [6]. Ref. [6] previously analyzed the Archean samples and observed a series of archaeal biomarkers, as well as hopanes and steranes. Using ToF-SIMS analysis, we were able to detect hopanes and steranes in the mudstone samples, but not in the Archean samples indicating that the hopanes and steranes are most likely contaminants in the Archean samples. We also did not observe the archaeal biomarkers; however, this may be from the lack of molecular ion preservation during ToF-SIMS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".