MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2133857316 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egp080

Olivine, and the Origin of Kimberlite

2010· article· en· W2133857316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicholas Arndt, Martin Guitreau, A. M. Boullier, Anton le Roex, Andréa Tommasi, Patrick Cordier, А. В. Соболев

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteOlivinePhenocrystGeologyGeochemistryMagmaMelt inclusionsNodule (geology)PetrogenesisMineralogyMantle (geology)PaleontologyVolcanic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two types of olivine occur in kimberlites from Greenland, Canada and southern Africa. The first, xenocrystic olivine, displays several different forms. Most distinctive are ‘nodules’, a term we use to describe the large (1–5 mm), rounded, single crystals or polycrystalline aggregates that are a common constituent of many kimberlites. Olivine compositions are uniform within single nodules but vary widely from nodule to nodule, from Fo81 to 93. Within many nodules, sub- to euhedral asymmetric tablets have grown within larger anhedral olivine grains. Dislocation structures, particularly in the anhedral grains, demonstrate that this olivine was deformed before being incorporated into the kimberlite magma. Olivine grains in the kimberlite matrix between the nodules have morphologies similar to those of the tablets, suggesting that most matrix olivine grains are parts of disaggregated nodules. We propose that a sub- to euhedral form is not sufficient to identify phenocrysts in kimberlites and provide some criteria, based on morphology, internal deformation and composition, that distinguish phenocrysts from xenocrysts. The second type of olivine is restricted to rims surrounding xenocrystic grains. Only this olivine crystallized from the kimberlite magma. Major and trace element data for the rim olivine are used to calculate the composition of the parental kimberlite liquid, which is found to contain between about 20 and 30% MgO. The bulk compositions of many kimberlites contain higher MgO contents as a result of the presence of xenocrystic olivine. The monomineralic, dunitic, character of the nodules, and the wide range from Fo-rich to Fo-poor olivine compositions, provide major constraints on the origin of the nodules. Dunite is a relatively rare rock in the mantle and where present its olivine is persistently Fo-rich. The dunitic source of the nodules in kimberlites lacked minerals such as pyroxene and an aluminous phase, which make up about half of most mantle-derived rocks. It appears that these minerals were removed from the mantle peridotite that was to become the source of the nodules, and the Fo content of the retained olivine was modified during interaction with CO2-rich fluids whose arrival at the base of the lithosphere immediately preceded the passage of the kimberlite magmas. Fragments of the resultant dunite were entrained into the kimberlite, where they were retained both as intact nodules and as disaggregated grains in the matrix.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations187
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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