Differences and similarities between emplacement models of kimberlite and basaltic maar-diatreme volcanoes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes erupted during the Tertiary or earlier and therefore their tephra rings and, less often, their near-surface diatreme-filling deposits have usually been eliminated by erosion. Poorly eroded Quaternary non-kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes, especially those of mafic and ultramafic magma types, have the same diatreme size range (diameter and depth) as kimberlite pipes and show similar internal volcaniclastic diatreme lithofacies. In addition, these young volcanoes often have a more or less preserved tephra ring consisting of hundreds to perhaps a few thousand thin tephra beds. Volcanological analyses of the xenolith-rich primary volcaniclastic deposits both within these diatremes and in the tephra ring beds reflect phases of explosive pipe growth and are of convincingly phreatomagmatic origin. The similarities between non-kimberlite pipes and kimberlite pipes suggest to some researchers that phreatomagmatic processes were also responsible for pipe excavation processes in kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes. In contrast, other researchers have suggested that kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes were emplaced largely by magmatic processes as a consequence of exsolution and the explosive expansion of juvenile volatiles. We therefore analysed and compared some key geological features of kimberlite and ultrabasic to basic ‘basaltic’ maar-diatreme volcanoes to determine similarities and differences with respect to their emplacement behaviour.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".