Boiling as a mechanism for colour zonations observed at the <scp>B</scp>yrud emerald deposit, <scp>E</scp>idsvoll, <scp>N</scp>orway: fluid inclusion, stable isotope and <scp>A</scp>r–<scp>A</scp>r studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Byrud emerald deposit comprises pegmatite veins hosted within Cambrian black shales and Late Carboniferous quartz syenite sills intruded by a Permo‐Triassic riebeckite granite. The emerald deposit genesis is consistent with a typical granite‐related emerald vein system derived from dominantly magmatic fluids with minor contributions from metamorphic source(s). Muscovite from an emerald‐bearing pegmatite at Byrud yielded an excellent Ar–Ar plateau age of 233.4 ± 2.0 Ma. Emerald display colour zonation alternating between emerald and beryl. Two dominant fluid inclusions types are identified as follows: two‐phase (vapour+liquid) and three‐phase (brine+vapour+halite) fluid inclusions and these are interpreted to represent conjugate fluids of a boiling system. The emerald was precipitated from these saline fluids with approximate overall salinities on the order of 31 mass per cent NaCl equivalent. Raman analyses indicate molar gas fractions for CO2, N2, CH4 and H2S are approximately 0.8974, 0.0261, 0.0354 and 0.0410, respectively. Formational temperatures and pressures of approximately 160–385°C and below 1000 bars were derived from fluid inclusion data and lithostatic pressure estimates from fluid inclusion studies within the Oslo rift. The colour zonation observed in the Byrud emerald crystals is related to alternating emerald and beryl precipitation in the liquid and vapour portions, respectively, of a two‐phase (boiling) system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".