Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Empirical studies of zircon in migmatites document features compatible with growth during heating at suprasolidus conditions. However, numerical modelling of zircon behaviour suggests that suprasolidus zircon is expected to grow only during cooling and melt crystallization. Here, phase equilibrium modelling coupled with mineral–melt Zr partitioning is used in an attempt to reconcile the observations from migmatites with the predictions of previous numerical models of zircon behaviour in anatectic systems. In general, an equilibrium‐based model that includes Zr partitioning does not allow prograde suprasolidus zircon growth. However, melting of metapelites at temperatures just above the wet solidus may allow limited zircon growth because of the low solubility of zircon in melt coupled with a source of Zr from minor garnet and ilmenite breakdown. Preservation of this zircon requires entrapment in growing peritectic minerals during subsequent heating and further melting. Heating above muscovite exhaustion in metapelites is unlikely to grow zircon because of the progressive increase in zircon solubility as well as an increasing compatibility of Zr in the residual mineral assemblage. The modelled compatibility of Zr in the residue of a metabasite decreases during heating, but an increase in zircon solubility in melt counteracts this; prograde suprasolidus zircon growth in metabasites is unlikely. Infiltration of Zr‐rich melt into a migmatite during open‐system anatexis provides an additional potential mechanism for prograde suprasolidus zircon growth during high‐temperature metamorphism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".