Effect of pressure on liquid‐liquid miscibility gaps: A case study of the systems CaO‐SiO<sub>2</sub>, MgO‐SiO<sub>2</sub>, and CaMgSi<sub>2</sub>O<sub>6</sub>‐SiO<sub>2</sub>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to investigate the effects of liquid‐liquid phase separation on the igneous evolution of planetary bodies, we investigated immiscibility in the systems CaO‐SiO2, MgO‐SiO2, and CaMgSi2O6‐SiO2 at pressures to 1.5 GPa. Few changes are observed in the size of the miscibility gaps in these systems at 1.0 GPa. The decrease of the stable area of the gaps is mainly due to the increase of the monotectic temperature because the latter closely follows the melting temperature of SiO2 at high pressure. The pressure at which the whole CaO‐MgO‐SiO2 miscibility gap becomes metastable is estimated to be 1.81 GPa. The thermal and compositional extents of miscibility gaps associated with network‐modifier cations (such as Ca2+) do not change significantly with increasing pressure, but the extents are increased for amphoteric cations (such as Mg2+), and the change is more pronounced if the latter have small ionic radii and high ionic potentials. Cations possessing high crystal field stabilization energies produce the largest immiscibility fields at atmospheric pressure, and the passage from the high‐spin to the low‐spin state with increasing pressure is expected to yield even larger miscibility gaps. Magmas containing substantial amounts of amphoteric cations and cations with high crystal field stabilization energies are therefore potential candidates to develop immiscibility at high pressures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".