Determination of olivine fayalite–forsterite composition in ordinary chondrites by X‐ray diffraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ordinary chondrites account for the majority of the described meteorites on Earth. To expand the toolbox of analytical techniques available to describe such specimens, this study evaluates the application of a previously described fayalite determination method by X‐ray diffraction (XRD) to equilibrated ordinary chondrites. A suite of ordinary chondrites, ranging from petrologic type 4 to 6, and types H, L, and LL were analyzed by both XRD and electron probe microanalysis. A comparison of the results shows good agreement between the two methods with an R2 of 0.95 and better agreement for homogenous ordinary chondrites above petrographic grade 4. The differences between the two methods can largely be attributed to analytical uncertainty, as well as differences between point and bulk sampling techniques. These differences were used to identify two polymict breccia samples, Peace River and Northwest Africa 10946. Of note is the effect of exposure of the ordinary chondrites to room temperature and humidity conditions after sample preparation (powdering) and the impact on measured fayalite content by XRD. As such, it is recommended that XRD analyses of meteorites be performed immediately after sample preparation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".