Crystal Size Distribution of Plagioclase and Amphibole from Soufriere Hills Volcano, Montserrat: Evidence for Dynamic Crystallization-Textural Coarsening Cycles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The crystal size distributions (CSDs) of plagioclase and amphibole were determined from andesites of the Soufrière Hills volcano, Montserrat. Plagioclase occurs as separate crystals and as chadocrysts in large amphibole oikocrysts. The chadocrysts represent an earlier stage of textural development, preserved by growth of the oikocryst. Seventeen rock and eight chadocryst plagioclase CSDs are considered together as a series of samples of textural development. All are curved, concave up, and coincident, differing only in their maximum crystal size. Three amphibole CSDs have a similar shape and behaviour, but at a different position from the plagioclase CSDs. A dynamic model is proposed for the origin of textures in these rocks. Crystallization of plagioclase started following emplacement of andesite magma at a depth of at least 5 km. A steep, straight CSD developed by nucleation and growth. This process was interrupted by the injection of mafic magma into the chamber, or convective overturn of hotter magma. The magma temperature rose until it was buffered, initially by plagioclase solution and later by crystallization. During this period textural coarsening (Ostwald ripening) of plagioclase and amphibole occurred: small crystals dissolved simultaneously with the growth of large crystals. The CSD became less steep and extended to larger crystal sizes. Early stages of this process are preserved in coarsened amphibole oikocrysts. Repetitions of this cycle generated the observed family of CSDs. Textural coarsening followed the ‘Communicating Neighbours’ model. Hence, each crystal has its own, unique growth–solution history, without appealing to mixing of magmas that crystallized in different environments.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".