Difficulties in distinguishing coherent from fragmental kimberlite: A case study of the Muskox pipe (Northern Slave Province, Nunavut, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Kimberlite drill core from the Muskox pipe (Northern Slave Province, Nunavut, Canada) highlights the difficulties in distinguishing coherent from fragmental kimberlite and assessing the volcanological implications of the apparent gradational contact between the two facies. Using field log data, petrography, and several methods to quantify crystal and xenolith sizes and abundances, the pipe is divided into two main facies, dark-coloured massive kimberlite (DMK) and light-coloured fragmental kimberlite (LFK). DMK is massive and homogeneous, containing country-rock lithic clasts (~ 10%) and olivine macrocrysts (~ 15%) set in a dark, typically well crystallised, interstitial medium containing abundant microphenocrysts of olivine (~ 15%), opaques and locally monticellite, all of which are enclosed by mostly serpentine. In general, LFK is also massive and structureless, containing ~ 20% country-rock lithic clasts and ~ 12% olivine macrocrysts. These framework components are supported in a matrix of serpentinized olivine microphenocrysts (10%), microlites of clinopyroxene, and phlogopite, all of which are enclosed by serpentine. The contact between DMK and LFK facies is rarely sharp, and more commonly is gradational (from 5 cm to ~ 10 m). The contact divides the pipe roughly in half and is sub-vertical with an irregular shape, locally placing DMK facies both above and below the fragmental rocks. Most features of DMK are consistent with a fragmental origin, particularly the crystal- and xenolith-rich nature (~ 55-65%), but there are some similarities with rocks described as coherent kimberlite in the literature. We discuss possible origins of gradational contacts and consider the significance for understanding the origin of the DMK facies, with an emphasis on the complications of alteration overprinting of primary textures.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".