DIAMOND RESORPTION: LINK TO METASOMATIC EVENTS IN THE MANTLE OR RECORD OF MAGMATIC FLUID IN KIMBERLITIC MAGMA?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The morphology and surface features on diamond crystals vary tremendously, even within a single body of kimberlite, reflecting a complex history of growth and dissolution. We have developed a methodology to distinguish between diamond-dissolution events happening in the mantle sources of diamond and in the rising kimberlitic magma. We used parcels of microcrystals of diamond (total of 330 stones) from Misery and Grizzly kimberlites, Ekati mine property, Northwest Territories, Canada. The results of morphological studies of resorption features combined with recent experimental data on diamond dissolution allowed us to divide each parcel into several morphological groups: one with kimberlite-induced resorption and several groups with mantle-derived resorption. Kimberlite-induced resorption features are present on ~72–73% of crystals having both octahedral and tetrahexahedral morphology, which have content and aggregation of nitrogen defects very different from those of stones with mantle-derived resorption. The latter make up ~6–13% of the two diamond populations, and their different thermal history in the mantle is supported by the notably lower nitrogen content and higher state of aggregation. Each resorption type represents a single oxidizing event. We define two types of kimberlite-induced resorption: in the presence of an aqueous fluid (Misery parcel) and in fluid-poor kimberlitic magma (Grizzly population). A comparison with the existing experimental data suggests a high H 2 O:CO 2 ratio of the oxidizing fluid, both in the mantle source and in the kimberlitic magma. We propose a new approach for the classification of diamond morphology based on resorption style, with the objective to constrain conditions in diamond-hosting media.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".