Accessory phase petrogenesis in relation to major phase assemblages in pelites from the Nelson contact aureole, southern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Monazite petrogenesis in the Nelson contact aureole is the result of allanite breakdown close to, but downgrade and therefore independent of, major phase isograds involving cordierite, andalusite and staurolite. The development of garnet downgrade of the staurolite and andalusite isograds does not appear to affect the onset of the allanite‐to‐monazite reaction but does affect the textural development of monazite. In lower pressure, garnet‐absent rocks, allanite breakdown results in localized monazite growth as pseudomorphous clusters. In higher pressure, garnet‐bearing rocks, allanite breakdown produces randomly distributed, lone grains of monazite with no textural relationship to the original reaction site. Fluids liberated from hydrous phases (chlorite, muscovite) during garnet formation may have acted as a flux to distribute light rare earth elements more widely within the rock upon allanite breakdown, preventing the localized formation of monazite pseudomorphs. Despite these textural differences, both types of monazite have very similar chemistry and an indistinguishable age by electron microprobe chemical dating (157 ± 6.4 Ma). This age range is within error of isotopic ages determined by others for the Nelson Batholith. Garnet from the garnet, staurolite and andalusite zones shows euhedral Y zoning typified by a high‐Y core, low‐Y collar and moderate‐Y annulus, the latter ascribed to allanite breakdown during garnet growth in the garnet zone. The cause of the transition from high‐Y core to low‐Y collar, traditionally interpreted to be due to xenotime consumption, is unclear because of the ubiquitous presence of xenotime. Accessory phase geothermometry involving monazite, xenotime and garnet returns inconsistent results, suggesting calibration problems or a lack of equilibration between phases.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".