Experimental petrology of the Tissint meteorite: Redox estimates, crystallization curves, and evaluation of petrogenetic models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tissint is an olivine‐phyric shergottite from an incompatible element depleted Martian mantle source. Oxythermobarometry applied to Tissint mineral phases demonstrates that the Tissint magma underwent an increase in oxygen fugacity, from ~3.5 log units below the quarz‐fayalite‐magnetite (QFM) buffer during the early stages of crystallization, to QFM−1.4 during the latter stages. This is the first time that such an oxidation event has been observed in a depleted shergottite. The reason for the oxidation event is unclear; however, calculations using the MELTS thermodynamic model suggest that auto‐oxidation is insufficient to cause more than ~1 log unit of oxidation, and therefore an external oxidation mechanism—such as oxidation by degassing—is required. If volatiles are responsible for the oxidation, then it indicates that volatiles are not exclusively tied to the enriched Martian mantle reservoir. A series of experiments using the Tissint parental magma were carried out under fixed (isothermal) or variable (cooling rate) temperature control, and at either reducing (QFM−3.2) or oxidizing (QFM−1) redox conditions. The observed liquid line of descent supports a potential genetic relationship between basaltic shergottites and olivine‐phyric shergottites. A peritectic relation where olivine is resorbed to form pyroxene is favored by increased oxygen fugacity; if oxidation during crystallization is more common than presently believed, it may explain why olivine is typically anhedral in olivine‐phyric shergottites. Results from a cooling‐rate experiment in which the oxygen fugacity was changed during the latter stages of crystallization resulted in olivine with a Cr compositional profile consistent with oxidized isothermal experiments, despite forming primarily under reducing conditions. A similar profile is observed in Tissint olivines, consistent with its redox history. Our results provide insights into the potential influence of oxidation events on the compositional zoning of minor or trace elements in olivine in olivine‐phyric basalts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".