Is the permeability of crystalline rock in the shallow crust related to depth, lithology or tectonic setting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The permeability of crystalline rocks is generally assumed to decrease with depth due to increasing overburden stress. While experiments have confirmed the dependence of permeability on stress, field measurements of crystalline permeability have not previously yielded an unambiguous and universal relation between permeability and depth in the shallow crust (<2.5 km). Large data sets from Sweden, Germany and Switzerland provide new opportunities to characterize the permeability of crystalline rocks in the shallow crust. Here we compile in situ permeability measurements (n = 973) and quantitatively test potential relationships between permeability, depth (0–2.5 km), lithology (intrusive and metamorphic) and tectonic setting (active and inactive). Higher permeabilities are more common at shallow depths (<1 km), but trend analysis does not support a consistently applicable and generalizable relationship between permeability and depth in crystalline rock in the shallow crust. Results suggest lithology has a weak control on permeability–depth relations in the near surface (<0.1 km), regardless of tectonic setting, but may be a more important control at depth. Tectonic setting appears to be a stronger control on permeability–depth relations in the near surface. Permeability values in the tectonically active Molasse basin are scattered with a very weak relationship between permeability and depth. While results indicate that there is no consistently applicable relationship between permeability and depth for crystalline rock in the shallow crust, some specific lithologies and tectonic settings display a statistically significant decrease of permeability with depth, with greater predictive power than a generalized relationship, that could be useful for hydrologic and earth system models.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".