Igneous Rock Associations 17. Advances in the Textural Quantification of Crystalline Rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the last 20 years, textural (microstructural) studies have regained their place in the pantheon of petrographic methods. This has happened by quantifying textures, so that models can be developed and tested – an approach that has proved to be so successful for chemical and isotopic studies. The combination of chemical, isotopic and textural methods, especially if applied to different crystal populations, can be a very powerful tool in the clarification of petrologic histories of rocks. Here, I will discuss some recent advances in the application of textural studies to crystalline rocks.RÉSUMÉAu cours des 20 dernières années, les études de texture (microstructure) ont retrouvé leur place au panthéon des méthodes pétrographiques. Cela a pu se produire grâce à la quantification des textures, permettant ainsi de développer et tester des modèles – une approche qui s’est avérée très bénéfique pour les études chimiques et isotopiques. La combinaison de méthodes chimiques, isotopiques et d’analyse texturale, en particulier si elles sont appliquées à des populations distinctes de cristaux, peut être un outil très puissant permettant de définir l’histoire pétrologique des roches. Dans le présent article, je vais discuter de certaines percées récentes dans l'application d’études texturales de roches cristallines.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".