MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Diamond Formation: A Stable Isotope Perspective

2014· article· en· W2155032924 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre Cartigny, M. Palot, Émilie Thomassot, Jeff W. Harris

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstitut de Physique du Globe de Paris
KeywordsGeologyKimberliteEclogiteDiamondMetasomatismAsthenosphereMantle (geology)SubductionGeochemistryXenolithLithosphereCratonArcheanMetamorphic rockEarth scienceTectonicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Primarily on the basis of C, N, S, and O stable isotope systematics, this article reviews recent achievements in understanding diamond formation and growth in Earth's mantle. Diamond is a metasomatic mineral that results from either the reduction or oxidation of mobile C-bearing liquids (fluids or melts) that intrude preexisting lithologies (eclogites, peridotites, and metamorphic rocks). This process seems ubiquitous, as it occurs over a large range of depths and extends through time. Diamond-forming carbon derives mainly from the convective asthenosphere. Most of its isotopic anomalies reflect fractionation processes in the lithospheric mantle, which are attributed to diamond precipitation itself and/or a mineralogical control occurring prior to diamond precipitation. Evidence for a mineralogical control would be the decoupling of the 15 N/ 14 N ratios in eclogitic diamond from other tracers of subduction in inclusions in the same diamond. C isotope anomalies related to subduction are rare and are probably best seen in diamonds from the transition zone.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations174
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Earth and Planetary SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207