Origin of the Magnetization of the Wichita Mountains Granites, Oklahoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magnetization of the Cambrian Wichita Mountains basement complex consists of several components, two of which are shown to be significant. The residual primary remanence is associated with the original titanomagnetite and the dominant secondary component is carried by minerals of the ilmenite-haematite series. The latter has been acquired at temperatures up to 300°C as a result of the regional hydrothermal alteration during late Palaeozoic. The secondary remanence is of thermochemical origin and carries a memory of a variable ambient field direction which may be modelled as a resultant of the geomagnetic field direction contemporaneous with the hydrothermal process and of the direction of the magnetostatic field of the primary titanomagnetite. Although the destruction of the original presumably Cambrian remanence has been extreme, in a few cases its direction appears to have been recovered. The results are complicated by the possibility of a self-reversal of secondary remanence as well as geomagnetic field reversal. An issue unresolved by the investigation relates to the possibility of generation of magnetite by heat treatment of rock material in the laboratory. It is generally concluded that it is difficult to recover the original cooling thermoremanence direction in an igneous intrusion which has been subjected later in its life to extreme conditions of hydrothermal alteration.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".