Granulite-facies regional and contact metamorphism of the Tasiuyak paragneiss, northern Labrador: textural evolution and interpretation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Tasiuyak paragneiss at the western margin of the Nain Plutonic Suite has been subjected to two granulite-facies metamorphic events: (i) regional metamorphism during the Paleoproterozoic Torngat orogeny, and (ii) contact metamorphism due to emplacement of the Mesoproterozoic Nain Plutonic Suite. Regional metamorphism led to partial melting of pelitic rocks and the development of a locally well-preserved sequence of prograde and retrograde textures. These textures are partly controlled by bulk composition and formed in the pressure–temperature (P–T) field of the continuous reaction: biotite + sillimanite + plagioclase + quartz = garnet + K-feldspar + melt, along a hairpin P–T path with peak conditions of ~8–10 kbar (0.8–1.0 GPa) and up to 870 °C in the NaKFMASH (Na2O–K2O–FeO–MgO–Al2O3–SiO2–H2O) system. These textures controlled the development of the contact metamorphic assemblages. Contact metamorphism of the pelitic rocks between the Tessiarsuyungoakh intrusion and the Makhavinekh Lake pluton led to growth of orthopyroxene-cordierite symplectite after garnet–biotite, and cordierite–spinel symplectite after garnet–sillimanite. These phase associations attest to reactions in specific microtextural settings, some of which produced a second generation of partial melt. Maximum temperatures were above ~750 °C and pressures were lower than those of the regional metamorphism. The aureole around the Makhavinekh Lake pluton is ~4 km wide and shows a progressive development of the contact metamorphic assemblages toward the pluton. In contrast, the contact metamorphic overprint is incipient around the Tessiarsuyungoakh intrusion, which developed a ~20 m wide contact aureole and is most prominent in screens of paragneiss within that intrusion.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".