Instability of Al <sub>2</sub> SiO <sub>5</sub> “triple-point” assemblages in muscovite+biotite+quartz-bearing metapelites, with implications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper uses constraints from experiments, thermodynamic modeling, and natural mineral assemblages to argue that Al 2 SiO 5 “triple-point” assemblages, in which all three Al 2 SiO 5 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 Al 2 SiO 5 mineral to these bulk compositions occur at higher temperature than the triple point. Less-common, highly aluminous bulk compositions may develop Al 2 SiO 5 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 Al 2 SiO 5 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".