Evolution of the North Qôroq centre nepheline syenites, South Greenland: alkali-mafic silicates and the role of metasomatism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The North Qôroq centre comprises a series of concentric nepheline syenite intrusions and forms part of the Igaliko Nepheline Syenite Complex, in the rift-related Gardar Province of South Greenland. The North Qôroq syenites range from mildly undersaturated augite syenite to strongly peralkaline agpaitic nepheline syenite. Extensivein situfractional crystallization has been postulated for the chemical variation both within units and throughout the centre. Many of the rocks have been affected by metasomatic fluids associated with the emplacement of younger syenite units, and this complicates their interpretation. In this study, the trends and compositions exhibited by pyroxene and amphibole from North Qôroq are examined and related to either primary crystallization or metasomatic activity (e.g. controls offO2, peralkalinity). Implications thus drawn are used to interpret the chemical processes inherent in the chemical and fluid evolution of alkaline magmas, and, in particular, the transition from miaskitic to agpaitic magmatism. In general, the major phases of the North Qôroq syenites records the increasing evolution of the units by crystal fractionation, towards peralkaline compositions. The composition of olivine, in the least evolved syenites, also points to a relatively high state of fractionation of the parent magma, whilst pyroxene and amphibole record an overall decrease in Mg/Mg+Fe), and a general increase in Fe3+and alkali content, with increased fractionation. The increasing peralkalinity of the magma also governs the evolution of pyroxene and, to a lesser degree, amphibole towards higher Zr and Ti contents in the more Na-rich compositions. The trends for pyroxene from metasomatized syenite show similar patterns, but lower Fe2+enrichment, suggesting the source of the metasomatic fluids is similar to the evolving syenites. The presence of amphiboles in metasomatic rocks, and high F contents attest to the F-rich nature of the metasomatic fluids, which is in agreement with results previously reported for metasomatic fluorapatite.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".