MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999320118 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.44.3.693

A LA-ICP-MS EVALUATION OF Zr RESERVOIRS IN COMMON CRUSTAL ROCKS: IMPLICATIONS FOR Zr AND Hf GEOCHEMISTRY, AND ZIRCON-FORMING PROCESSES

2006· article· en· W1999320118 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ф. Беа, P. Montero, M. Ortega

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZirconGeologyGeochemistryPetrology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The results of ~4000 LA–ICP–MS analyses in 152 thin sections from common crustal rocks reveal that several rock-forming minerals contain tens to a few thousand ppm of Zr. The highest concentrations of Zr are found in xenotime, followed by titanite, ilmenite, rutile, allanite, amphibole, clinopyroxene, garnet, magnetite and, less commonly, plagioclase, K-feldspar and orthopyroxene. Olivine, cordierite, biotite, muscovite, apatite, epidote and monazite have low levels of Zr (<5 ppm, generally <1 ppm). The minerals with the highest K D Hf/ K D Zr are titanite (2.5), orthopyroxene (2.0), amphibole and clinopyroxene (1.8), and epidote and rutile (1.6–1.7). Ilmenite, magnetite, the feldspars and apatite have K D Hf/ K D Zr ≈1, and values less than one were found in xenotime and zircon (0.8), garnet (0.7), and allanite (0.6). The most important implications of these results follow. First, the growth of a Zr-bearing phase during partial melting does not influence the Zr concentration of the melt, but increases the fraction of zircon that can be dissolved at a given temperature. This accelerates the disappearance of zircon from the protolith or, in melts already segregated, the dissolution of inherited zircon. The effect will be more marked in metaluminous magmas precipitating amphibole and titanite than in any other type of magma. Second, the presence of Zr-bearing phases has little influence of the zircon-saturation “geothermometer”. It may cause somewhat higher (20–30°C) results in metaluminous rocks, but has no effect on peraluminous rocks. Third, the uptake of Zr by major minerals in crystallizing magmas may reduce both the concentration of Zr in the melt available to form zircon and the temperature at which zircon begins to precipitate. Mineral–melt reactions involving Zr-bearing phases may lead to zircon grains with complicated patterns of zoning and texturally discordant zones, apparently diachronous. Fourth, higher-than-chondrite Zr/Hf fractionates may arise from titanite, amphibole or clinopyroxene fractionation, but this requires very little or no crystallization of zircon. Significantly lower-than-chondrite Zr/Hf magmas only result from zircon fractionation. Lastly, two new examples of mineral reactions that involve the formation of a mass-balancing accessory phase, useful for high-resolution geochronology, are described: the formation of xenotime as a product of the breakdown of garnet in amphibolite-grade metapelites, and the subsolidus growth of a new rim on zircon included in Zr-bearing feldspars.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations193
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207