Bibliographic record
Abstract
The formation of crystal clusters by synneusis (magmatic sintering) affects a wide range of magmatic systems from olivine clusters in komatiite to quartz clusters in high-silica granite. A common feature of synneusis in any mineral phase is the alignment of neighbouring crystals in certain lower-energy orientation relationships. However, the underlying mechanisms involved with both the alignment of crystals in lower-energy orientations and the binding of crystal clusters are not well understood. In the absence of mechanisms that bind crystals together upon contact, the same hydrodynamic forces that may bring crystals together can in theory also serve to disaggregate clusters. Here I use cathodoluminescence imaging and crystal orientation data from quartz clusters in high-silica granite to show that i) rapid crystalline neck growth along attachment surfaces and ii) grain rotation are two mechanisms that reduce the grain boundary energy of crystal clusters while increasing clusters’ shear strength. The continued crystallization of sintered phases as the magmatic body cools further cements crystal pairs and resists cluster disaggregation. Together these mechanisms underpin both the formation and preservation of large crystal clusters in dynamic magmatic environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".