Creating Calibration Curves to Determine Shock Pressure in Clinopyroxene
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Impact cratering is an important geological process that occurs on every rocky body in the solar system. It alters the texture and mineralogy of rocks via shock metamorphism. The peak shock pressures experienced by a rock are traditionally evaluated using qualitative optical methods however, quantitative methods do exist. One such method was developed by Uchizono et al., who used X-ray Diffraction (XRD) to measure lattice strain (e) in several artificially shocked olivine grains using XRD peak broadening as a function of tan θ, where θ is the diffraction angle. They plotted the e values against the known peak shock pressures experienced by the olivine grains. Using this calibration curve, the precise shock pressure experienced by a grain of olivine can be determined using its measured e value. Another method was developed by McCausland et al. and Izawa et al., who used in situ XRD to measure strain-related mosaicity (SRM) of olivine in several ordinary chondrites and enstatite in enstatite chondrites, respectively. They plotted these results against the shock stage estimates for these meteorites. Using these plots, meteorites can be assigned to shock stage bins by measuring the SRM of olivine and/or enstatite. Both methods are useful for evaluating shock metamorphism, however, they have limitations. Uchizono et al.’s calibration curve has been successfully applied to martian meteorites, however it can only be applied to olivine-bearing rocks. McCausland et al.’s and Izawa et al.’s SRM method is uncalibrated and is limited to binning meteorites by shock stage. This work aims to expand on both methods by creating calibration curves for clinopyroxene (CPX): one for e, similar to Uchizono et al.’s calibration curve for olivine, and one for SRM. This will extend the application of shock calibration methods to a greater variety of rock types. Preliminary results are presented herein.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".