Physicochemical conditions and timing of rodingite formation: evidence from rodingite-hosted fluid inclusions in the JM Asbestos mine, Asbestos, Québec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fluid inclusions and geological relationships indicate that rodingite formation in the Asbestos ophiolite, Québec, occurred in two, or possibly three, separate episodes during thrusting of the ophiolite onto the Laurentian margin, and that it involved three fluids. The first episode of rodingitization, which affected diorite, occurred at temperatures of between 290 and 360 degrees C and pressures of 2.5 to 4.5 kbar, and the second episode, which affected granite and slate, occurred at temperatures of between 325 and 400 degrees C and pressures less than 3 kbar. The fluids responsible for these episodes of alteration were moderately to strongly saline (approximately 1.5 to 6.3 m eq. NaCl), rich in divalent cations and contained appreciable methane. A possible third episode of alteration is suggested by primary fluid inclusions in vesuvianite-rich bodies and secondary inclusions in other types of rodingite, with significantly lower trapping temperatures, salinity and methane content. The association of the aqueous fluids with hydrocarbon-rich fluids containing CH4 and higher order alkanes, but no CO2, suggests strongly that the former originated from the serpentinites. The similarities in the composition of the fluids in all rock types indicate that the ophiolite had already been thrust onto the slates when rodingitization occurred.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".