Axial‐type olivine crystallographic preferred orientations: The effect of strain geometry on mantle texture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of finite strain geometry on crystallographic preferred orientation (CPO) is poorly constrained in the upper mantle. Specifically, the relationship between shape preferred orientation (SPO) and CPO in mantle rocks remains unclear. We analyzed a suite of 40 spinel peridotite xenoliths from Marie Byrd Land, West Antarctica. X‐ray computed tomography allows for quantification of spinel SPO, which ranges from prolate to oblate shape. Electron backscatter diffraction analysis reveals a range of olivine CPO patterns, including A‐type, axial‐[010], axial‐[100], and B‐type patterns. Until now, these CPO types were associated with different deformation conditions, deformation mechanisms, or strain magnitudes. Microstructures and deformation mechanism maps suggest that deformation in all studied xenoliths is dominated by dislocation‐accommodated grain boundary sliding. For the range of temperatures (780–1200°C), extraction depths (39–72 km), differential stresses (2–60 MPa), and water content (up to 500 H/10 6 Si) of the xenolith suite, variations in olivine CPO do not correlate with changes in deformation conditions. Here we establish for the first time in naturally deformed mantle rocks that finite strain geometry controls the development of axial‐type olivine CPOs; axial‐[010] and axial‐[100] CPOs form in relation to oblate and prolate fabric ellipsoids, respectively. Girdling of olivine crystal axes results from intracrystalline slip with activation of multiple slip systems and grain boundary sliding. Our results demonstrate that mantle deformation may deviate from simple shear. Olivine texture in field studies and seismic anisotropy in geophysical investigations can provide critical constraints for the 3‐D strain in the upper mantle.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".