The geochemistry of carbonatites revisited: Two major types of continental carbonatites and their trace-element signatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been several attempts to systematize the geochemistry of carbonatites, most recently by Samoilov (1984), Nelson et al. (1988), Woolley and Kempe (1989), and Rass (1998). These studies revealed a number of important geochemical characteristics that can be used to track the evolutionary history of these rocks, distinguish them from modally similar metamorphic parageneses, and aid in mineral exploration for rare earths, niobium and other resources commonly associated with carbonatites. Important breakthroughs in the understanding of carbonatite petrogenesis and numerous reports of new carbonatite localities made in the past two decades lay the ground for a critical re-assessment of the geochemistry of these rocks. A new representative database of whole-rock carbonatite analyses was compiled from the post-1988 literature and various unpublished sources. The database contains 820 analyses encompassing calcio-, magnesioand ferrocarbonatites from 174 localities (ca. one-third of the total number of carbonatites known worldwide) reduced to ca. 350 analyses following the approach of Woolley and Kempe (1989). Carbonatites emplaced in oceanic settings (e.g., Cape Verde), ophiolite belts (e.g., Oman), or those of uncertain tectonic affinity (e.g., El Picacho in Mexico) were not included.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".