Investigation of Platinum-Group Minerals (PGM) from Othrys Chromitites (Greece) Using Superpanning Concentrates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Platinum-group minerals were concentrated using superpanning from two composite chromitite samples, which were collected from two old mines within the Othrys ophiolite. This method allows for the recovery of a broad spectrum of these rare and fine-grained minerals, and helps to better identify them and interpret their origin. Major differences between the east and west Othrys ophiolites were determined, probably as a result of their different origin and evolution. Primary Os-, Ir-, and Ru-bearing platinum-group minerals (IPGM)-alloys and the Rh-, Pt- and Pd-bearing platinum-group minerals (PPGM) occur only in the east Othrys chromitite, indicating an evolution from initially low fS2 conditions at shallower mantle levels with the subsequent implication of a S-saturated ascending fluid. In contrast, the absence of primary IPGM-alloys in west Othrys chromitite indicates that S saturation had been attained. The presence of erlichmanite suggests that sulphur fugacity eventually increased significantly in both suites. Substantial fluctuations of a fluid phase, likely related to serpentinising fluids, modified the platinum-group minerals (PGM) assemblage of west Othrys, and resulted in a large diversity of secondary PGM minerals. The limited number of secondary species developed in the east Othrys indicate that secondary processes were also different in the two suites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".