MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2152364283 · doi:10.1093/petrology/43.5.907

Petrogenesis of Early Neogene Magmatism in the Northern Puna; Implications for Magma Genesis and Crustal Processes in the Central Andean Plateau

2002· article· en· W2152364283 on OpenAlexaff
Pablo J. Caffe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsActivation Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologySilicicGeochemistryPetrogenesisFractional crystallization (geology)Volcanic rockFelsicAndesiteBasaltBasaltic andesiteRhyoliteMagmatismPetrologyMaficPaleontologyVolcanoTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New compositional data and petrogenetic models are presented for pre-Upper Miocene volcanism in the northern Puna of Argentina (22°S–24°S). Two phases of volcanism produced small dome complexes of mainly silicic andesite to low-SiO2 rhyolite. The Upper Oligocene–Lower Miocene phase (UOLM, 20–17 Ma), produced two distinct groups of rocks. The UOLM-1 group is metaluminous and mainly andesitic, with isotopic compositions like those of the recent arc (87Sr/86SrT ∼0·706; εNdT −3). The UOLM-2 group is more silicic and peraluminous, and has isotopic compositions indicating a substantial crustal contribution (87Sr/86SrT ∼0·713; εNdT −8). The Mid-Miocene phase (MM: 15–12 Ma) produced rocks similar in composition to those of the UOLM-2 group (87Sr/86SrT ∼0·710; εNdT −7) but with higher incompatible element contents. Ratios of Ba/Nb and Zr/Nb in the UOLM group rocks are uniform and similar to those of the current arc, whereas the ratios in MM centres show a mixed arc and back-arc affinity. This suggests that the westward shift in the arc began in the northern Puna in the mid-Miocene. Neither the exposed Palaeozoic felsic basement nor the lower-crustal granulites known from xenolith suites are compositionally suitable as protoliths for the UOLM and MM magmas. The preferred petrogenetic model for the magmas involves hybridization of a depleted arc basalt with partial melts of the felsic basement. Geochemical modelling and thermal arguments rule out magma mixing as the process of hybridization. Successful assimilation–fractional crystallization (AFC) solutions indicate an increase in crustal assimilation from 15–25% in UOLM-1, to 40–60% in the case of UOLM-2 and MM group rocks. Assuming the same end-member compositions, the modelling suggests genesis of the MM magmas at higher pressure than the UOLM-2 centres (≥10 kbar vs 7 kbar), which may reflect the influence of crustal thickening in the plateau region by the mid-Miocene. The felsic dome complexes of this study are compositionally similar to the large-volume, caldera-sourced felsic ignimbrites that dominated volcanism in the region from 10 to 2 Ma and our results suggest that there is no fundamental difference in magma genesis between them. The differences in the volumes and the mode of eruption reflect changes in the stress and thermal regime with time.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations97
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Petrology→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→