TEXTURE, COMPOSITION, AND AGE VARIATIONS IN MONAZITE FROM THE LOWER AMPHIBOLITE TO THE GRANULITE FACIES, LONGSTAFF BLUFF FORMATION, BAFFIN ISLAND, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electron-microprobe data were obtained from monazite along five transects within the Longstaff Bluff Formation, a thick package of Paleoproterozoic turbiditic rocks exposed on Baffin Island, northern Canada, and metamorphosed at conditions of the upper greenschist to granulite facies during the Trans-Hudson Orogeny. During prograde metamorphism, the LREE content of monazite progressively decreased, whereas the U, Th, Y and HREE content increased, with sharp changes at the transition from Sil–Kfs rocks to incipiently migmatitic rocks. In situ chemical dating of monazite yielded a range of ages from 1913 to 1741 Ma. The age data form five distinct clusters (1910, 1880, 1845, 1805, and 1765 Ma), of which at least four are interpreted to represent different episodes of monazite growth. The textural relationship and petrographic context of the grains were used to constrain the significance of the data. The two oldest grains (1910 Ma) could be detrital or metamorphic. The 1880 Ma age is interpreted to reflect monazite growth near the onset of regional deformation. The 1845 Ma age cluster is mostly found in the three southern (higher-grade) transects, the 1805 Ma event is widespread throughout the study area, and the 1765 Ma episode of monazite growth has been recognized mostly in the northern (lower-grade) part of the study area. The results suggest a northward progression of metamorphism from granulite- to lower-amphibolite-facies assemblages, with textural data suggesting that the widespread 1805 Ma event was responsible for migmatite formation in the southernmost part of the study area.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".