The Henkel Petrophysical Plot: Mineralogy and Lithology From Physical Properties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Henkel plot (logarithm of magnetic susceptibility versus density of rock samples) reveals that most rocks fall on either a “magnetite trend” or a “paramagnetic trend.” Interpretation of gravity and magnetic surveys is improved when the mineralogical and lithological basis of these trends is understood. We present a quantitative mineralogical mixing model, involving the components QFC (quartz‐feldspar‐calcite), FM (ferromagnesian silicates), and M (magnetite) and discuss the geological processes which produce or modify these mixtures. Igneous rocks mostly plot on the magnetite trend, where the FM/M ratio is about 10. The density‐susceptibility mineralogical mixing model is compatible with the CIPW mineral calculation for igneous classification from chemical analyses. Sedimentary and metamorphic processes usually involve oxidation, reduction, and/or iron loss, all which are magnetite‐destructive and lead to petrophysical measurements along the paramagnetic trend where FM/M > 1,000. Mineralization, with the introduction of sulfides and oxides, leads to dense rocks which do not plot along the magnetite nor paramagnetic trends. This quantitative analysis provides a method to integrate geological processes in the interpretation of geophysical surveys.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".