Instability of Al <sub>2</sub> SiO <sub>5</sub> “triple-point” assemblages in muscovite+biotite+quartz-bearing metapelites, with implications
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses constraints from experiments, thermodynamic modeling, and natural mineral assemblages to argue that Al2SiO5 “triple-point” assemblages, in which all three Al2SiO5 minerals are in stable equilibrium, are not possible in common muscovite(Ms)+biotite(Bt)+quartz(Qtz)-bearing metapelitic rocks because the reactions that first introduce an Al2SiO5 mineral to these bulk compositions occur at higher temperature than the triple point. Less-common, highly aluminous bulk compositions may develop Al2SiO5 minerals at temperatures below the triple point such that stable triple-point assemblages are theoretically possible. The “invisibility” of the triple-point to common Ms+Bt+Qtz-bearing metapelites calls into question most metapelitic triple-point localities reported in the literature, and carries implications for the topology of the metapelitic petrogenetic grid, the bathozone/bathograd scheme of Carmichael (1978), and the possibility of prograde kyanite → andalusite → sillimanite sequences. Re-examination of reported triple-point localities suggests that in most if not all cases, the Al2SiO5 minerals grew at different times in the metamorphic history of the rock
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it