Boron and lithium isotopic compositions as provenance indicators of Cu-bearing tourmalines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Li and B isotopic compositions of gem-quality Cu-bearing tourmalines were used (1) to distinguish among Paraiba tourmalines from Brazil and Cu-bearing tourmalines from Nigeria and Mozambique; and (2) to identify the likely source of Li and B for these gem-quality tourmalines. The δ 11 B values of tourmaline from Paraiba, Brazil, range from –42.4‰ to –32.9‰, whereas the δ 11 B values of Cu-bearing tourmaline from Nigeria and Mozambique range from –30.5‰ to –22.7‰ and –20.8‰ to –19.1‰ respectively. Tourmalines from each locality have relatively homogeneous δ 11 B values and display no overlap. There is slight overlap between δ 7 Li values of Paraiba tourmaline (+24.5‰ to +32.9‰) and Cu-bearing tourmaline from Nigeria (+32.4‰ to +35.4‰), and δ 7 Li values of Cu-bearing tourmaline from Nigeria and Mozambique (+31.5‰ to +46.8‰). Nevertheless, Cu-bearing tourmalines from each locality can be fingerprinted using a combination of their δ 11 B and δ 7 Li values. The very small δ 11 B values are consistent with a non-marine evaporite source, and are among the smallest reported for magmatic systems, expanding the global range of B isotopicc omposition for tourmaline by 12‰. The corresponding large δ 7 Li values are among the largest reported, although they are less diagnostic of the source of the Li. The large δ 7 Li values in conjunction with the small δ 11 B values suggest a non-marine evaporite or brine as a source for Li and B, either as constituent(s) of the magma source region or, by assimilation during magma ascent. The large range in δ 11 B and δ 7 Li values suggests that B and Li isotope fractionation occurred during magmatic degassing and late-stage magmatic-hydrothermal evolution of the granite-pegmatite system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".