MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411207036 · doi:10.31219/osf.io/3htzu_v2

Epitaxy governs the location and orientation of nucleation in metamorphic rocks

2025· preprint· en· W4411207036 on OpenAlexaff
Brendan Dyck, Rellie M. Goddard, Alix Osinchuk, Finnegan Vanderkam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
Topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleationOrientation (vector space)EpitaxyMaterials scienceCrystallographyCondensed matter physicsGeometryNanotechnologyChemistryPhysicsMathematicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Developing a full understanding of many geological and synthetic material processes, such as crustal metamorphism, mantle phase transformations, and alloy grain refinement requires knowledge of the way in which crystals nucleate within a multiphase crystalline matrix. Nevertheless, a common set of rules that predict the location and orientation of nuclei growth in crystalline reactions has not previously been described. By studying the orientation relationships in 12 natural parent–daughter pairs with varying symmetry, we illustrate that nucleation of crystalline phases in rocks can be rationalised by a model of epitaxy in which the location and orientation of nuclei maximise coincident-site lattice bond interactions with a parental phase. We suggest that epitaxy is the default (lowest energy) nucleation pathway in natural mineral reactions, which has implications for the self-organization of mineral systems, the kinetics of metamorphic reactions as well as the rheology of multiphase rocks. Broadly applied, our epitaxy model allows us to predict the microstructure of metamorphic rocks based solely on the lattice structure and chemistry of constituent phases.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.234 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicnanoparticles nucleation surface interactionsFrench-language works237,207