A statistical analysis of the distribution of cordierite and biotite in hornfels from the Bugaboo contact aureole: implications for the kinetics of porphyroblast crystallization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The three‐dimensional disposition of cordierite and biotite crystals in a hornfels from the contact aureole of the Bugaboo Batholith is quantified using high‐resolution X‐ray micro‐computed tomography and global as well as scale‐dependent pattern statistics. The results demonstrate a random distribution of cordierite and biotite crystal sizes for all scales across the entire rock volume studied indicative of interface‐controlled prograde metamorphic reaction kinetics. The reaction considered responsible for the mineral assemblage and the formation of cordierite and biotite in the hornfels is Ms + Chl + Qtz = Crd + And + Bt + . Rock‐specific phase equilibria point to metamorphic conditions of ~520 –550 °C and 3 kbar for this reaction. The common approach to approximate the shape of crystals as spherical underestimates the influence of the Strauss hard‐core process on rock texture and may be misinterpreted to reflect ordering of crystal sizes by inhibition of nucleation and growth commonly associated with diffusion‐controlled reaction kinetics. According to our findings, Strauss hard‐core ordering develops at length scales equal to and less than the average major axis of the crystal population. This is significantly larger than what is obtained if a spherical crystal geometry would be assumed, and increases with deviation from sphericity. For the cordierite and biotite populations investigated in this research, Strauss hard‐core ordering developed at length scales of up to ∼2.2 and 1.25 mm, respectively, which is almost 1 mm longer than the scales that would be obtained if a spherical geometry would have been assumed. Our results highlight the importance of a critical assessment of the geometrical model assumptions commonly applied in the three‐dimensional analysis of crystal size distributions, and underline the need for a quantitative understanding of interface processes in order to appreciate their role in the kinetics of contact metamorphic reactions and rock texture formation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".