PLATINUM-GROUP MINERALS IN PODIFORM CHROMITITES OF THE OMAN OPHIOLITE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chromitite lenses rich in the platinum-group elements (PGE) have recently been discovered in the deeper part of the mantle section of the northern part of the Oman ophiolite. In terms of stratigraphic level, there are two types of chromitite: Moho transition zone (MTZ) and mantle types. The mantle type can be further classified into two subtypes: PGE-poor and PGE-rich. Platinum-group minerals (PGM) have been mainly observed in the PGE-rich mantle chromitite and, to a lesser extent, in the PGE-poor mantle chromitite, although a few PGM grains have been detected from the MTZ chromitites. The PGM comprise four main categories in the following order of abundance: (1) sulfides [Os-rich laurite, erlichmanite and unnamed (Ir,Rh)(Ni,Cu,Fe)2S3], (2) sulfarsenide and arsenide (irarsite–hollingworthite series, palladoarsenide), (3) alloys and native metals [Os–Ir alloy, (Cu–Pt–Fe– Ir–Rh) alloy, Pt–Fe alloy, (Ni–Ru–Os–Ir) alloy, Ir–Pt alloy, Ir–Rh alloy and native Pd metal], and (4) PGE oxide (Ru–Os–Ir oxide). Base-metal sulfides (BMS) and base-metal alloys (BMA) also are found, as inclusions in chromian spinel and interstitial matrix, mainly in the MTZ and PGE-poor mantle chromitites. The common abundance of PGE sulfides, i.e., Os-rich laurite, in the Oman chromitites is ascribed to the sulfide-undersaturated nature of the magma involved in chromitite formation. However, the sulfur fugacity was sufficiently high to produce the Os-rich laurite and, to a lesser extent, erlichmanite and Ru-poor Os–Ir alloy. The sulfur fugacity was higher in the formation of the PGE-poor mantle chromitite relative to the PGE-rich chromitite, as indi-cated by the presence of the unnamed Ir-rich sulfides and, to a lesser extent, BMS. The presence of PGE oxide commonly associated with fractured chromian spinel indicates that the PGE distribution in rocks can easily be modified at an early stage of serpentinization.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".