MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A condensation model for the formation of chondrules in enstatite chondrites

2009· article· en· W2005374784 on OpenAlexaff
M. Blander, Arthur D. Pelton, In‐Ho Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicAstro and Planetary Science
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnstatiteChondruleChondriteSupercoolingSilicateOlivineNucleationCondensationThermodynamic equilibriumMineralogyMeteoriteMaterials scienceGeologyThermodynamicsChemistryAstrobiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract— It is proposed that the chondrules in enstatite chondrites formed near the Sun from rain‐like supercooled liquid silicate droplets and condensed Fe‐Ni alloys in thermodynamic equilibrium with a slowly cooling nebula. FeO formed and dissolved in the droplets in an initial stage when the nucleation of iron was blocked, and was later mostly reduced to unalloyed Fe. At high temperatures, the silicate droplets contained high concentrations of the less volatile components CaO and Al2O3. At somewhat lower temperatures the equilibrium MgO content of the droplets was relatively high. As cooling progressed, some droplets gravitated toward the Sun, and moved in other directions, depleting the region in CaO, Al2O3, and MgO and accounting for the relatively low observed CaO/SiO2, Al2O3/SiO2, and MgO/SiO2 ratios in enstatite chondrites. At approximately 1400 K, the remaining supercooled silicate droplets crystallized to form MgSiO3 (enstatite) with small amounts of olivine and a high‐SiO2 liquid phase which became the mesostases. The high enstatite content is the result of the supercooled chondrules crystallizing at a relatively low temperature and relatively high total pressure. Finally, FeS formed at temperatures below 680 K by reaction of the condensed Fe with H2S. All calculations were performed with the evaluated optimized thermodynamic databases of the FactSage thermodynamic computer system. The thermodynamic properties of compounds and solutions in these databases were optimized completely independently of any meteoritic data. Agreement of the model with observed bulk and phase compositions of enstatite chondrules is very good and is generally within experimental error limits for all components and phases.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicAstro and Planetary ScienceFrench-language works237,207