Numerical simulations of spiral‐shaped inclusion trails: can 3D geometry distinguish between end‐member models of spiral formation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerical 3D simulations of the development of spiral inclusion trails in porphyroblasts were conducted in order to test the proposals that (a) 3D spiral geometry differs between the rotation and nonrotation end‐member models of spiral formation proposed in the literature, and (b) 3D spiral geometry can be used as a criterion to distinguish between the two end‐member models in rocks. Four principal differences are identified between the two sets of simulations: smoothness of spiral curvature; spacing of foliation planes; alignment of individual foliation planes either side of the sphere representing the porphyroblast; and spiral asymmetry with respect to matrix shear sense. Of these differences, only spiral asymmetry and possibly the alignment of individual foliation planes are diagnostic criteria for distinguishing between the end‐member models. In the absence of a readily applied test to distinguish the end‐member models, interpretation of spiral inclusion trails is problematic. It is necessary to determine complementary evidence to distinguish porphyroblast rotation or nonrotation during spiral formation.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".