MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311375105 · doi:10.1111/maps.13935

Insights into the petrogenetic history of the Northwest Africa 7635 augite‐rich shergottite

2022· article· en· W4311375105 on OpenAlexafffund
C. D. K. Herd

Bibliographic record

VenueMeteoritics and Planetary Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicPlanetary Science and Exploration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAugitePlagioclaseGeologyPigeoniteOlivinePetrogenesisIlmeniteMagnetiteGeochemistryMeteoritePyroxeneBaddeleyiteBasaltMineralogyAstrobiologyZircon

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The petrogenesis of the Northwest Africa (NWA) 7635 Martian meteorite involved the entrainment of xenocrystic olivine grains into a relatively magnesian and oxidized melt, followed by a redox‐dependent reaction between olivine and melt that resulted in the crystallization of orthopyroxene and magnetite. Subsequent crystallization of the melt began with augite, plagioclase, and magnetite phenocrysts, and was followed by crystallization of augite, plagioclase, magnetite, ilmenite, and pyrrhotite in the groundmass, which took place under more rapid conditions of cooling, as reflected in the groundmass grain size. The petrogenetic history of NWA 7635 is similar in many ways to that of NWA 8159; this observation, coupled with similarities in geochemical and isotopic characteristics from other studies, suggests that the parent melts of the two rocks—as represented by all minerals except the xenocrystic olivine—were one and the same. The main distinctions between the two rocks are that their parent melts entrained xenocrystic olivine of different composition, and the cooling rate of the groundmass of NWA 7635 was more rapid than that of NWA 8159. The conclusion that the redox reaction took place between olivine and melt is in contrast to other work that suggests the reaction took place in the subsolidus, and has implications for the nature of the reaction in both NWA 7635 and NWA 8159.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.548
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.169 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMeteoritics and Planetary ScienceSame topicPlanetary Science and ExplorationFrench-language works237,207