MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2895919896 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egy093

Genesis of the Peridotite Zone, Stillwater Complex, Montana, USA

2018· article· en· W2895919896 sur OpenAlexafffund
M. Christopher Jenkins, James E. Mungall

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Petrology · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Geological SurveyGrowing Spine Foundation
Mots-clésUltramafic rockChromiteGeologyOlivinePeridotiteGeochemistryFractional crystallization (geology)Layered intrusionMagmaMagma chamberDikeCrustLayeringBasaltMaficVolcano

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Here, we critically examine models for the development of layering in the ultramafic rocks of the Stillwater Complex of Montana, USA. A fine-grained, high-magnesium (high-Mg) dike in the Mountain View area of the complex is a plausible example of the type of magma that was parental to the layered cumulates in the Ultramafic Series. Modeled assimilation and crystallization of a primary komatiitic magma, involving 20% contamination by Archean granodiorite and 1% iron formation in a batch process, produces a liquid and solid assemblage like that in the dike. Equilibrium crystallization during assimilation of the crust produces cumulus olivine (Fo87–85) and chromite (Cr# = 64–55) consistent with the mineral chemistry of cumulus phases in the Peridotite Zone; each internally differentiated ultramafic layer could have formed by injection of a single highly contaminated batch of komatiite magma carrying about 10–20% suspended crystals. Whereas previous models of fractional crystallization to form the limited range of mineral and bulk-rock compositions observed in the Ultramafic Series required that these rocks accumulated from tens to thousands of times greater thicknesses of melt, the present model requires only four times as much melt as cumulates and dramatically diminishes the apparent volume of missing magma. The modeled crystallization of the proposed parental magma also demonstrates that, relative to olivine, only a small amount of cumulus chromite crystallizes in cotectic volume ratios of around 100:1 to 100:2 olivine to chromite. The modal abundance of chromite in the olivine-bearing cumulates from the Mountain View area varies continuously between 0·1 and 80 vol. %, with an average ratio of 100:9·2 olivine to chromite, rarely showing proportions consistent with either chromite-only or chromite + olivine cotectic crystallization. This, in turn, suggests that if olivine and chromite did precipitate in cotectic proportions, the crystals have subsequently been sorted mechanically to variable extents, producing the observed continuous range of modal proportions of chromite in the cumulates, and olivine has been preferentially removed from the system along with considerable amounts of escaped melt. Furthermore, the behavior of crystallizing assemblages at the olivine–orthopyroxene and the chromite–orthopyroxene peritectics forbids the deposition of the commonly observed mineral assemblages olivine + orthopyroxene + chromite or orthopyroxene + chromite by a process of fractional crystallization, but does permit them to form by deposition of mechanically sorted crystals derived from magmas carrying large crystal loads at internal equilibrium. Extremely efficient sorting of crystal-rich magma during lateral transport of crystals may therefore be responsible for the nearly monomineralic chromite seams in the Peridotite Zone. These considerations lead us to question the purported cyclicity of the cumulate rocks in the Peridotite Zone. Markov Chain analysis of the layering in logged drill core at various locations in the complex shows considerable departure from the suggested regular cycles of cumulate layers and provides no support for the classic model that units formed by closed-system equilibrium crystallization from mixed magmas following a succession of discrete magma recharge events. We suggest that the degree of contamination in the supply of crystal-laden contaminated magma transported to the site of deposition may have varied randomly, leading to the formation of layered rocks that do not conform to the previously accepted cyclic unit model of settled or in situ liquidus minerals. The layered rocks observed in the Peridotite Zone may have formed at the base of a magma chamber or they may not have, but their compositions and mineral modes do not convey any information about such a magma body if it was present at the time of their formation, because each layered unit appears to have formed from a completely separate volume of komatiitic magma.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,023
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,978

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0230,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,016
Tête enseignante GPT0,206
Écart entre enseignants0,190 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations63
Publié2018
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of PetrologyMême sujetGeological and Geochemical AnalysisTravaux en français237 207