MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104070397 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egh031

Intensive Variables in Kimberlite Magmas, Lac de Gras, Canada and Implications for Diamond Survival

2004· article· en· W2104070397 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Yana Fedortchouk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Victoria
KeywordsPhenocrystOlivineKimberliteChromiteGeologyMineral redox bufferGeochemistryMantle (geology)MineralogyVolcanoVolcanic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Crystallization temperatures (T) and oxygen fugacities (fO2) of kimberlite magma are estimated from oxides included in olivine phenocrysts from the Leslie, Aaron, Grizzly and Torrie kimberlite pipes in the central Slave Province, Canada. Crystallization temperatures recorded by olivine–chromite pairs at an assumed pressure of 1·0 GPa are 1030–1170°C ± 50°C, with a mean of ∼1080°C. At these temperatures, the fO2 of coexisting olivine and chromite is 2–3 log units less oxidized than the nickel–nickel oxide (NNO) buffer at a silica activity limited by the presence of monticellite. Mass balance of olivine, bulk-rock and liquid compositions in equilibrium with olivine phenocryst rims suggests that these kimberlites represent crystallization from a magma with 11–28 mol % of liquid, 10 mol % of earlier precipitated olivine phenocrysts and 62–79 mol % of mantle xenocryst olivine. The calculated T–fO2 values indicate that diamonds entrained in the Lac de Gras kimberlites were probably transported to the surface within the stability field of graphite but close to the graphite–CO2 boundary.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations185
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PetrologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207