The Chondritic Moon: a solution to the <sup>142</sup>Nd conundrum and implications for terrestrial mantle evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent discoveries that the Earth has a supra-chondritic 142Nd signature have thrown chondritic geochemical Earth models into doubt. Several solutions have been proposed to explain this discrepancy but none has been widely accepted. This paper reviews Nd isotope data for the Moon which bridge the gap between the 142Nd signatures of chondritic meteorites and the accessible Earth. Different chondrite classes define a 142Nd–148Nd correlation line attributed to incomplete mixing of nucleosynthetic components in the solar nebula. Terrestrial standards have 142Nd signatures well above this correlation line, but the 142Nd signature of the Bulk Moon is c. 6 ppm lower than terrestrial (assuming a chondritic Sm/Nd ratio) and falls within error of enstatite chondrites. In view of the demonstrated isotopic similarity between the Earth and Moon, giant impact models require the Moon to be a sample of the early Earth. Therefore, it is inferred that the Earth–Moon system was generated from material similar to enstatite chondrites, but Earth's mantle experienced Sm/Nd fractionation very soon after the Moon-forming collision. Such fractionation processes have been attributed to subduction of early Fe-enriched crust into a deep mantle storage reservoir. Because Sm/Nd fractionation occurred when most 146Sm had already decayed, the hidden incompatible-element-enriched reservoir only became slightly depressed in its 142Nd signature, explaining why this signal has not yet been detected in ocean island basalt sources.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".