MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Implications of garnet resorption for the Lu-Hf garnet geochronometer: an example from the contact aureole of the Makhavinekh Lake Pluton, Labrador

2011· article· en· W2166692781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
E. D. Kelly, William D. Carlson, James N. Connelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Metamorphic Geology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMetamorphismGeochemistryPlutonGranuliteGeochronologyCordieriteMetamorphic rockFluoriteMineralogyIsochron datingIsochronGeomorphologyFaciesTectonicsPaleontologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the contact aureole of the Makhavinekh Lake Pluton (MLP), Labrador, garnet resorption caused redistribution of Lu and loss of Hf, creating spuriously young Lu–Hf garnet ages. Garnet grew during granulite facies regional metamorphism at 1860–1850 Ma. At 1322 Ma, garnet rims were replaced by coronas of cordierite and orthopyroxene during contact metamorphism. Garnet–ilmenite Lu–Hf geochronology using bulk-garnet separates yields apparent ages that young from 1876 ± 21 Ma at 4025 m from the contact to 1396 ± 8 Ma at 450 m from the contact. Toward the contact, garnet crystals are progressively more resorbed. Concentrations of Lu measured by LA-ICP-MS along radial traverses on central sections through relict garnet decrease gently away from the cores but rise steeply within 50–200 μm of the edges of the relicts. Enrichments of Lu in rims of relict garnet demonstrates strong partitioning of Lu into garnet during resorption and modest intracrystalline diffusion. Hafnium distributions could not be measured, but considering the strong incompatibility of Hf with garnet, it is likely that nearly all Hf in resorbed portions of the garnet was lost from the crystals. Lu–Hf ages in the aureole are thus controlled predominantly by this retention of Lu and loss of Hf during garnet resorption. This deduction was tested with a simple numerical model in which the partial retention of Lu and loss of Hf is tracked as a population of garnet is resorbed. Assuming a spherical geometry for garnet porphyroblasts, Rayleigh fractionation is used to approximate initial Lu zoning profiles ranging from flat to steeply decreasing toward garnet rims. The model simulates: (i) Lu–Hf decay for a specified period before resorption; (ii) instantaneous resorption with retention of Lu and loss of Hf from the resorbed portion of the crystal and (iii) Lu–Hf decay during a specified period after resorption. Several parameters influence the modelled age, but garnet resorption and Lu retention are the primary factors. When all other parameters are held constant, larger amounts of resorption and higher degrees of Lu retention produce younger apparent ages (false ages). Similarly, flatter initial Lu profiles yield younger apparent ages as a consequence of the larger proportion of Lu and Hf that resides in the outer portions of the porphyroblast. The difference between the apparent and actual ages is greater if the duration of the pre-resorption decay period is large relative to the post-resorption decay period. Larger crystals in a Gaussian crystal-size distribution (CSD) generally dominate the Lu–Hf budget and produce an older apparent age relative to the age of the mean crystal size. Compared to a symmetrical Gaussian CSD, positively skewed CSDs result in reduced resorption of large crystals and produce an older apparent age. Application of the model to the MLP aureole, positing growth at 1850 Ma and resorption at 1320 Ma, yields model ages that young from 1850 to 1374 Ma toward the contact, in good agreement with the apparent ages determined from geochronology.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations96
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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