THE TANCO PEGMATITE AT BERNIC LAKE, MANITOBA. XIII. EXOCONTACT TOURMALINE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The petalite-subtype Tanco granitic pegmatite, southeastern Manitoba, intrudes an amphibolite (metagabbro), which is metasomatically altered to tourmaline and magnesian annite close to the contact. The composition of exocontact tourmaline depends on the composition of the host rock and on the composition and amount of fluid injected from the pegmatite-forming melt into the host rock. Two compositional groups of tourmaline occur in the exocontacts at Tanco: (1) common feruvite – schorl – dravite (Ca- and Mg-rich), and (2) rare intermediate ternary tourmaline: elbaite – schorl – dravite (Na-, Al- and Li-rich). The Ca, Mg and Ti contents of group-1 tourmaline increase with distance from the contact between the pegmatite and the host rock. Group-1 and -2 tourmalines crystallize as a result of Na-, Al-, Li- and B-rich pegmatite-derived fluids infiltrating the Ca-, Mg-and Fe-rich host amphibolite, or as a chemical reaction between the pegmatite-forming melt and the host rock. The exocontact tourmaline is zoned, with a (Fe, Mg)-rich group-1 core and a Li-rich group-2 rim. Early consumption of Ca, Mg and Fe by crystallization of feruvite – schorl – dravite increased the chemical potential of Na, Al and Li in the fluid and promoted crystallization of elbaite – schorl – dravite. The rare ternary tourmaline of group 2 crystallized in the tourmaline aureole from fluids with high chemical potential of B, Al, Na and Ca, which are major constituents in tourmaline, but absent or minor in holmquistite. The influx of B-rich acidic fluids promoted crystallization of tourmaline and prevented crystallization of holmquistite.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".