Manganoan ilmenite as kimberlite/diamond indicator mineral
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Manganoan ilmenite was identified in Juina, Brazil kimberlitic rocks among other megacrysts. It forms oval, elongated, rimless grains comprising 8–30 wt.% of the heavy fraction. Internally the grains are homogeneous. The chemical composition of Mn-ilmenite is almost stoichiometric for ilmenite except for an unusually high manganese content, with MnO = 0.63–2.49 wt.% (up to 11 wt.% in inclusions in diamond) and an elevated vanadium admixture (V2O3 = 0.21–0.43 wt.%). By the composition, Mn-ilmenite megacrysts and inclusions in diamond are almost identical. The concentrations of trace elements in Mn-ilmenite, compared to picroilmenite, are much greater and their variations are very wide. Chondrite-normalized distribution of trace elements in Mn-ilmenite megacrysts is similar to the distribution in Mn-ilmenites included in diamond. This confirms that Mn-ilmenite in kimberlites is genetically related to diamond. The finds of Mn-ilmenite known before in kimberlitic and related rocks are late- or postmagmatic, metasomatic phases. They either form reaction rims on grains of picroilmenite or other ore minerals, or compose laths in groundmass. In contrast to those finds, Mn-ilmenite megacrysts in Juina kimberlites are a primary mineral phase with a homogeneous internal structure obtained under stable conditions of growth within lower mantle and/or transition zone. In addition to pyrope garnet, chromian spinel, picroilmenite, chrome-diopside, and magnesian olivine, manganoan ilmenite may be considered as another kimberlite/diamond indicator mineral.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".