MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335397268 · doi:10.12789/geocanj.2015.42.071

Igneous Rock Associations 18. Transition Metals in Oceanic Island Basalt: Relationships with the Mantle Components

2015· article· en· W2335397268 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
John D. Greenough, Kevin MacKenzie

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience Canada · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan Campus
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBasaltGeochemistrySubductionGeologyArcheanMantle (geology)ProterozoicEclogiteCratonIncompatible elementOceanic crustPeridotitePartial meltingPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Incompatible elements and isotopic ratios identify three end-member mantle components in oceanic island basalt (OIB); EM1, EM2, and HIMU. We estimate compatible to mildly incompatible transition metal abundance trends (Ni, Co, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, Mn, Sc, and Zn) in “primitive” basalt suites (Mg# = Mg/(Mg + 0.9*Fe) atomic = 0.72) from 12 end-member oceanic islands by regressing metals against Fe/Mg ratios in sample suites, and solving for concentrations at Mg/Fe = 1 (Mg# = 0.72). Using the transition metal estimates, exploratory statistics reveal that islands ‘group’ based on mantle component type even when La/Yb ratios are used to compensate metal concentrations for percentage melting. Higher chalcophile Zn (and Pb, earlier work) in EM1 and EM2 compared to HIMU, and higher Cr (3+) and Sc in HIMU relative to EM1, support views that HIMU represents subduction-processed ocean floor basalt. Incompatible elements, ratios and isotopes indicate that EM1 is Archean, EM2 is Proterozoic or younger, and both are related to sediment subduction. As found with incompatible elements, EM1 and EM2 show similar ‘compatible’ element concentrations, but lower (multi-valence) Cr, Fe and Mn in EM1 could indirectly reflect increasing oxidation of subducted sediment between the Archean and Proterozoic. Alternatively, changes in subduction processes that yielded peak continental formation in the Neoarchean, and craton-suturing in the Paleoproterozoic may account for EM1–EM2 differences. EM1 shows similar or lower Cr, Ni and Co compared to HIMU and EM2 suggesting that economic viability of layered intrusions, which have extreme EM1-like signatures, is unrelated to high metals in EM1 mantle sources, but that high % melting appears important. Because core-concentrated transition metals correlate with mantle component type, lithospheric recycling apparently controls their concentrations in OIB and core-mantle interaction may be unimportant.RÉSUMÉLes éléments incompatibles et les rapports isotopiques permettent de délimiter trois termes extrêmes de composants mantéliques dans des basaltes insulaires océaniques (OIB), soit EM1, EM2, et HIMU. Nous estimons les tendances d’abondance de métaux de transition (Ni, Co, Fe, Cu, Cr, V, Mn, Sc, and Zn) compatibles à modérément incompatibles dans des suites de basaltes « primitifs » (Mg# = Mg/(Mg + 0,9*Fe) rayon atomique = 0,72) sur 12 termes extrêmes de matériaux insulaires océaniques, par régression des concentrations des métaux sur les rapports Fe/Mg dans des échantillons des suites, la détermination étant définie au rapport Mg/Fe = 1 (Mg# = 0,72). L’utilisation d’une approche statistique exploratoire sur les estimations de métaux de transition montre que la composition des îles se « regroupent » en fonction du type de composition du manteau, cela même lorsque les ratios La/Yb sont utilisés pour compenser les concentrations de métaux pour déterminer le pourcentuel de fusion. Le caractère plus chalcophile du Zn (et Pb, travail antérieur) dans EM1 et EM2 comparé à HIMU, et la plus grande teneur en Cr (3+) et Sc dans HIMU par rapport à EM1, accréditent l’idée que HIMU représente le basalte de subduction des fonds océaniques. Les éléments incompatibles, les ratios et les isotopes montrent que EM1 est archéen, que EM2 est protérozoïque ou plus jeune, et que les deux sont liés à la subduction sédimentaire. Comme constaté pour les éléments incompatibles, EMI et EM2 affichent une compatibilité similaire des concentrations en éléments « compatibles », toutefois une concentration inférieure en Cr (multivalent), Fe et Mn dans EM1 pourrait refléter indirectement une oxydation croissante des sédiments subduits entre l’Archéen et le Protérozoïque. Par ailleurs, les changements dans les mécanismes de subduction qui ont mené à un maximum de formation continentale au Néoarchéen et à des épisodes de sutures cratoniques au Paléoprotérozoïque, peuvent expliquer les différences entre EM1 et EM2. La teneur similaire ou inférieure en Cr, Ni et Co de EM1 par rapport à HIMU et EM2 permet de croire que la viabilité économique des intrusions stratifiées – lesquelles montrent des signatures extrêmes EM1 – est sans rapport avec les sources mantéliques à fortes teneurs en métaux, mais que le fort pourcentuel de fusion qui importerait. Parce que la concentration du noyau en métaux de transition correspond avec le type de composant du manteau, c’est le recyclage lithosphérique qui contrôle apparemment leurs concentrations dans l'OIB, et l'interaction noyau-manteau pourrait être sans importance.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.258
Threshold uncertainty score0.816

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.152 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscience CanadaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207