Geochronology, geochemistry and petrogenesis of the late Palaeoproterozoic A-type granites from the Dunhuang block, SE Tarim Craton, China: implications for the break-up of the Columbia supercontinent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The discovery of c . 1.77 Ga A-type granite in the Tarim Craton (TC) provides the first evidence that supports an extensional event related to fragmentation of the Columbia supercontinent in the late Palaeoproterozoic. We present laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) zircon U–Pb ages, Lu–Hf isotopic data and the whole-rock geochemical and Nd isotopic data of A-type granites in the Dunhuang area in the SE Tarim Craton. Zircon U–Pb dating for three granite samples indicate that they were emplaced at c . 1.77 Ga. Zircons from these granites have ε Hf ( t ) values ranging from –5.9 to 8.7, corresponding to two-stage model ages of 1.9–2.7 Ga. These granites exhibit the following petrological geochemical characteristics that are typical of A-type granite: (a) high content of SiO 2 and alkalis (i.e. high K 2 O + Na 2 O with K 2 O/Na 2 O > 1), enrichment of high-field-strength elements (HFSE) and rare Earth elements (REE) (except for Eu) and extreme depletion of Ba, Sr, P, Ti and Eu; (b) 10000×Ga/Al ratios in the Dunhuang granites of 3.5–4.4, with an average value of 3.79 which is similar to the global average of 3.75 for A-type granites; (c) the presence of characteristic minerals such as amphibole, sphene and perthite; and (d) zirconium saturation temperature results indicate that the Dunhuang granites have high initial magmatic temperatures in the range 887–950°C, similar to those of typical of A-type granites. Whole-rock ε Nd ( t ) values range from –2.5 to –6.2 and T DM model ages from 2.3 to 2.7 Ga. Nd–Hf isotopic and whole-rock geochemical data indicate that these granites were most likely derived from the late Archean crustal source in a post-collisional/post-orogenic extensional tectonic environment. The late Palaeoproterozoic A-type granites in the TC could be correlated with those of the North China Craton (NCC), India and the Canadian Shield, thus demonstrating extensional tectonics and break-up of the Columbia supercontinent.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".