Compositional and metamorphic controls on velocity and reflectivity in the continental crust: An example from the Grenville Province of eastern Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present velocity and density data for a suite of gabbros and metagabbros over a range of metamorphic grades, from subgreenschist to the eclogite facies. Most of these rocks have a mesocratic protolith with overlapping bulk chemistry ranges providing an opportunity to investigate the systematics of mineralogy and physical properties across a wide range of metamorphic grades with minimal compositional variation. In addition, more mafic gabbros in the eclogite facies were also investigated in order to take into account variations in the extent of transformation of gabbro to eclogite controlled by bulk chemistry. The physical properties data are used as the basis for a first‐order crustal model composed of granitic, anorthositic, and gabbroic components. The objective of constructing the crustal model is to evaluate the relative contribution of compositional variation and metamorphism to the velocity, density, and reflectivity structure of the continental crust. The model suggests that in the upper crust, if fracture porosity is neglected, composition dominates the velocity and density structure, while in the middle and lower crust, composition and metamorphism play equally important roles. Simulations designed to predict potential reflection coefficient size distributions for the various bulk chemistries and mineralogies in the crustal model indicate step increases in the potential for large reflection coefficients that are dominantly controlled by metamorphic grade. Step increases in reflectivity are predicted between the lower and upper amphibolite facies and between incompletely and completely eclogitized metagabbros in the eclogite facies. We also consider several alternative mixing models which account for the effects of one of the three lithologic components occurring as isolated bodies rather than perfectly mixed with the other two components. These models indicate a reduction of the potential for large reflection coefficients by as much as 50%, emphasizing the importance of the degree of mixing for crustal reflectivity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".