MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2339450318 · doi:10.14288/1.0052569

The age and origin of megacrysts in the Jericho kimberlite (Nunavut, Canada)

2011· article· en· W2339450318 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Goran Marković

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteGeologyArchaeologyGeographyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fourteen samples of megacrysts from Jericho kimberlite have been studied. The study includes petrography, geochemistry of major and minor elements, thermobarometry and Sr-Nd-Hf isotopic analyses. The purpose of the study is to determine the relationship between megacrysts and kimberlites (xenocrystal vs cognate) and shed light on the nature of melts parental to kimberlite megacrysts. The Jericho megacrysts include garnet, clinopyroxene, olivine, ilmenite and orthopyroxene. A unique feature of Jericho megacrysts is its gradual transition from discrete megacrysts to megacrystalline pyroxenites. Equilibrium temperatures and pressures were calculated for eight megacryst samples. All calculated P-T place megacrysts into deep garnet-bearing mantle, with T=1200-1280° C and P=60-71 kbar. The P-T estimates for orthopyroxene-bearing samples are identical to P-T estimates for orthopyroxene-free samples, with 195-230 km depth range. Thermobarometric data on Jericho megacrysts cannot give a definitive answer about their origin. The ratios of Rb and Sr isotopes define a slope that corresponds to the age of 179 ± 21 Ma, Sm-Nd system gives an age of 177 ± 7.3 Ma and Lu-Hf ratios define a line with a slope that corresponds to the age of 169 ± 63 Ma. The Sm-Nd apparent isochron age of megacrysts (177 ± 7.3 Ma) falls within the brackets of the Jericho kimberlite age, as determined from the Rb-Sr isotopic systematics of phlogopite (171.9 ± 2.6 Ma). Isotopic ratios of megacrysts and kimberlite are different, supporting a view that megacrysts could not crystallize from kimberlite magma. On the Sr-Nd-Hf isotopic diagrams, the majority of megacrysts plot within the mixing array of HIMU mantle and EM I and thus can be produced by melting of the metasomatically altered CLM that experienced preferential extraction of Rb and Pb by CO₂-rich fluids (HIMU reservoir) and addition of lower continental crust (EMI reservoir). On the Sr-Nd-Hf isotopic diagrams kimberlites plot within mixing array of HIMU mantle and EM II. A protolith for the kimberlites can be the metasomatically altered CLM (HIMU) that incorporated some subducted terrigenous sediments of the upper crust (EMII reservoir). The difference in Sr-Nd systematics of Jericho megacrysts and kimberlites can be explained by varied contribution of EMI or EMII to prevalent HIMU-type mantle. Results obtained in this study suggest that Jericho megacrysts did not crystallize from host kimberlite. Even though megacrysts are not phenocrysts, they should be considered cognate to kimberlites having crystallized from associated quasi- contemporaneous melts rather than being xenocrysts totally unrelated by the age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.145
Teacher spread0.134 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→