Magmatic, hydrothermal and subsolidus evolution of the agpaitic nepheline syenites of the Sushina Hill Complex, India: implications for the metamorphism of peralkaline syenites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Proterozoic Sushina Hill Complex is the only agpaitic complex, reported from India and is characterized by a eudialyte-rinkite-bearing nepheline syenite. The complex is considered a ‘metamorphosed agpaitic complex'. This study describes the mineral assemblages formed during successive stages of evolution from magmatic to hydrothermal stages and low-temperature subsolidus re-equilibration assemblage. The primary-late magmatic assemblage is characterized by albite, orthoclase, unaltered nepheline, zoned diopside-hedenbergite, rinkite, late magmatic eudialyte and magnesio-arfvedsonite formed at ∼700°C with maximum aSiO2 of 0.60. In contrast, a deuteric assemblage (400-348°C) is represented by aegirine-jadeite-rich clinopyroxene, post-magmatic eudialyte, sodalite, analcime and the decomposition assemblages formed after eudialyte with decreasing aSiO2 (0.52-0.48). A further low-temperature subsolidus assemblage (≤250°C) represented by late-forming natrolite could be either related to regressive stages of metamorphism or a continuum of the subsolidus processes. Considering the P/T range of the greenschist - lower-amphibolite facies of metamorphism it is evident that the incorporation of a jadeite component within pyroxene is related to a subsolidus process between ∼400°C and 348°C in a silica deficient environment. We emphasize that the deuteric fluid itself acted as an agent of metamorphism and the decomposition assemblage formed after eudialyte is retained even after metamorphism due to the convergence of subsolidus and metamorphic domains. The formation of jadeite-rich aegirine is not considered to result from metamorphism. Overall it is near-impossible to discern any bona fide metamorphic textures or mineral assemblages in these syenites which appear to preserve a relict mineralogy regardless of their occurrence in country rocks which have experienced greenschist - amphibolite facies metamorphism. The Sushina complex is very similar in this respect to the Norra Kärr complex (Sweden).
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".