Nakhlite Emplacement as Constrained by X‐Ray Computed Tomography and 3D Quantitative Textural and Petrofabric Analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Nakhlites, clinopyroxene‐rich rocks, are the largest single‐origin suite of samples from Mars. Despite extensive study to discern their petrogenetic histories, nakhlite emplacement mechanisms and environments are not well‐constrained, and it is unknown whether they represent intrusive or extrusive igneous rocks, or a combination. Here, we use X‐ray computed microtomography (XCT) and three‐dimensional (3D) quantitative textural analyses (e.g., 2D–3D modal abundances, crystal size distributions [CSDs], and petrofabrics) to place additional constraints on nakhlite formation and emplacement. Modal abundances between and within the nakhlites are variable on both a 2D and 3D basis, highlighting the significance of XCT and 3D analyses when studying these samples. All nakhlites in our study have similar crystallization conditions and histories based on 3D CSDs. Cumulus phases (=olivine and pyroxene) crystallized from magma(s) with high nucleation densities, likely related to effective undercooling, and subsequently underwent a period of magma storage. The CSD profiles record evidence for magma recharge events. Pyroxene long‐axis orientations in the nakhlites studied here exhibit a magmatic foliation, which likely developed during crystal settling and accumulation in low‐to‐no flow settings, such as magma chambers, shallow intrusions (e.g., sills and dikes), lava lake or pond infills, or thick lava flows. We also show that the pyroxenitic layer of Theo's Flow (Canada) may not be an appropriate terrestrial analog for the nakhlites due to differences in emplacement mechanisms and conditions. Our findings suggest that lava flows may be less prevalent in the martian meteorite collection, while intrusive bodies and rocks may be more common than initially thought.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".