Anisotropy of magnetic susceptibility (AMS): magnetic petrofabrics of deformed rocks
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract For 40 years magnetic anisotropy has provided successful geological interpretations of magnetic ellipsoid orientations; in contrast the interpretation of anisotropy magnitudes is far more convoluted. This is due to complexities at various levels within rocks, including different physical magnetic responses of different minerals, grain-scale magnetic anisotropy, the anisotropy of interacting ensembles, the mineralogical constitution of rocks and the processes and mechanisms that align minerals in nature. The chief factors determining the magnetic fabrics of tectonized rocks include: mineral-physics properties, crystal symmetry, mineral-abundances, tectonic symmetry and crystal orientation-distribution, strain or stress, kinematic history and certain tectono-metamorphic processes (e.g. diffusion, crystal plasticity, dynamic recrystallization, particulate flow, neomineralization). AMS ultimately provides an integrated record of some combination of these factors. Subfabrics due to distinct processes or events may be expressed in different mineral and/or grain-size fractions, and are superposed in the conventionally observed AMS. Their discrimination may be achieved by various laboratory techniques such as magnetization and torque measurements in weak and strong applied fields, anisotropy of ARM and IRM, gyroremanence, Rayleigh magnetization, chemical leaching. However, under limited circumstances, statistical approaches such as differential analysis, tensor standardization, symmetry of confidence regions for the principal axes may partly isolate different subfabric orientations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it