Chromium and manganese zoning in pelitic garnet and kyanite: Spiral, overprint, and oscillatory (?) zoning patterns and the role of growth rate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract X‐ray composition maps and quantitative analyses for Mn, Ca and Cr have been made for six pelitic and calc‐pelitic garnet crystals and Al, Fe and Cr analyses maps have been made for two kyanite crystals, from lower and mid/upper amphibolite facies rocks from the Grenville Province of western Labrador, using an electron microprobe analyser and a laser ablation ICP‐MS. Garnet with spiral (‘snowball’) internal fabrics (S i ) has spiral zoning in major elements, implying that growth was concentrated in discrete regions of the crystal at any one time (spiral zoning). Cr zoning is parallel to S i in low amphibolite facies garnet with both straight and spiral internal fabrics, indicating that the garnet overprinted a fabric defined by Cr‐rich (mica±chlorite±epidote) and Cr‐poor (quartz±plagioclase) layers during growth (overprint zoning) and that Cr was effectively immobile. In contrast, in mid/upper amphibolite facies garnet porphyroblasts lacking S i , Cr zoning is concentric, implying that Cr diffusion occurred. Cr zoning in kyanite porphyroblasts appears superficially similar to oscillatory zoning, with up to three or four annuli of Cr enrichment and/or depletion present in a single grain. However, the variable width, continuity, Cr concentration and local bifurcation of individual annuli suggest that an origin by overprint zoning may be more likely. The results of this study explain previously observed nonsystematic Cr zoning in garnet and irregular partitioning of Cr between coexisting metamorphic mineral pairs. In addition, this study points to the important role of crystal growth rate in determining the presence or absence of inclusions and the type of zoning exhibited by both major and trace elements. During fast growth, inclusions are preferentially incorporated into the growing porphyroblast and slow diffusing elements such as Cr are effectively immobile, whereas during slow growth, inclusions are not generally included in the porphyroblast and Cr zoning is concentric.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".