Contrasting platinum-group mineral assemblages from chromitites of the Nizhny Tagil and Guli massifs (Russia): Implications for composition, sources and age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Nizhny Tagil and Guli clinopyroxenite-dunite massifs, located in the Middle Urals and Maimecha-Kotui Province, respectively, are associated with world-class platinum-group elements (PGE) placer deposits. Both massifs contain small bodies of schlieren to massive chromitite associated with dunite. The predominance of Pt-Fe alloys at Nizhny Tagil is consistnt with the whole-rock “M”-shaped mantle-normalized PGE pattern of the chromitite. In contrast, the preponderance of laurite and Os-Ir alloys at Guli is consistent with a negatively sloped PGE pattern, the latter being characteristic of ophiolite-type podiform chromitites. The ‘unradiogenic’ 187 Os/ 188 Os values obtained for both platinum-group minerals (PGM) and chromitite are indicative of a common near-to-chondritic source for the PGE and implies that the osmium isotope budget of chromitite is largely controlled by laurite and Os-rich alloy. Average model 187 Os/ 188 Os ages calculated for the Nizhny Tagil and Guli massifs correspond to the late Riphean (e.g., 862 ± 48 Ma and 616 ± 8 Ma, respectively). The compositional and isotope-geochemical results provide new constraints on the temporal evolution of ultramafic rocks of the Uralian Platinum Belt and northern segment of the Siberian Platform.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".