MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010483081 · doi:10.1134/s1028334x11110067

Contrasting platinum-group mineral assemblages from chromitites of the Nizhny Tagil and Guli massifs (Russia): Implications for composition, sources and age

2011· article· en· W2010483081 on OpenAlexaff
К. N. Malitch, А. А. Ефимов, I. Yu. Badanina

Bibliographic record

VenueDoklady Earth Sciences · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersRussian Foundation for Basic Research
KeywordsChromititeMassifPlatinum groupGeologyGeochemistryUltramafic rockPlacer depositOphioliteRipheanChromitePlacer miningPlatinumPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDoklady Earth SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207