Magmatic affinity of modern and ancient subalkaline volcanic rocks determined from trace-element discriminant diagrams
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
When dealing with ancient subalkaline volcanic rocks, the alkali – total iron – magnesium (AFM) diagram is of limited use in assigning a tholeiitic versus calc-alkaline affinity because these elements are often mobile during alteration and metamorphism. Classification diagrams using immobile trace elements are preferable but need to be tested and optimized on unaltered rocks. To this end, a geochemical database containing over a thousand, presumed unaltered, subalkaline volcanic samples from young oceanic arcs was assembled. The data were classified using both major and trace-element approaches, and the results were compared. If the calc-alkaline and tholeiitic fields on the AFM diagram are used to define magmatic affinity, then the commonly used Zr versus Y, La versus Yb, and Th versus Yb discriminant diagrams misclassify 39%, 24%, and 28% of samples, respectively. After optimization (using a number of criteria), all three trace-element classification diagrams produce results that are generally consistent with the AFM diagram. The optimized diagrams only misclassify 7%, 11%, and 12% of the samples, respectively. A new Th/Yb versus Zr/Y diagram has a better overall performance than any single ratio diagram and may prove helpful in assigning magmatic affinities to volcanic rocks in ancient successions.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it