The 1501 Ma Kuonamka Large Igneous Province of northern Siberia: U–Pb geochronology, geochemistry, and links with coeval magmatism on other crustal blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new large igneous province (LIP), the 1501 ± 3 Ma Kuonamka LIP, extends across 700 km of northern Siberia and is linked with coeval dikes and sills in the formerly attached São Francisco craton (SFC)–Congo craton to yield a short-duration event 2000 km across. The age of the Kuonamka LIP can be summarized as 1501 ± 3 Ma (95% confidence), based on 7 U–Pb ID-TIMS ages (6 new herein) from dolerite dikes and sills across the Anabar shield and within western Riphean cover rocks for a distance of 270 km. An additional sill yielded a SIMS (CAMECA) age of 1483 ± 17 Ma and sill in the Olenek uplift several hundred kilometers farther east, a previous SIMS (SHRIMP) age of ca. 1473 Ma was obtained on a sill; both SIMS ages are within the age uncertainty of the ID-TIMS ages. Geochemical data indicate a tholeiitic basalt composition with low MgO (4–7 wt%) within-plate character based on trace element classification diagrams and source between E-MORB and OIB with only minor contamination from crust or metasomatized lithospheric mantle. Two subgroups are distinguished: Group 1 has gently sloping LREE ((La/Sm)PM = 1.9) and HREE ((Gd/Yb)PM = 1.8) patterns, slightly negative Sr and moderate TiO2 (2.2 wt%), and Group 2 has steeper LREE ((La/Sm)PM = 2.3) and HREE ((Gd/Yb)PM = 2.3), strong negative Sr anomaly, is higher in TiO2 (2.7 wt%), and is transitional from tholeiitic to weakly alkaline in composition. The slight differences in REE slopes are consistent with Group 2 on average melting at deeper levels. Proposed reconstructions of the Kuonamka LIP with 1500 Ma magmatism of the SFC–Congo craton are supported by a geochemical comparison. Specifically, the chemistry of the Chapada Diamantina and Curaça dikes of the SFC can be linked to that of Groups 1 and 2, respectively, of the Kuonamka LIP and are consistent with a common mantle source between EMORB and OIB and subsequent differentiation history. However, the coeval Humpata sills and dikes of the Angola block of the Congo craton represent a different magma batch.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".