Iron isotopic evolution during fractional crystallization of the uppermost <scp>B</scp>ushveld <scp>C</scp>omplex layered mafic intrusion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present δ56Fe (56Fe/54Fe relative to standard IRMM‐014) data from whole rock and magnetite of the Upper and Upper Main Zones (UUMZ) of the Bushveld Complex. With it, we assess the role of fractional crystallization in controlling the Fe isotopic evolution of a mafic magma. The UUMZ evolved by fractional crystallization of a dry tholeiitic magma to produce gabbros and diorites with cumulus magnetite and fayalitic olivine. Despite previous experimental work indicating a potential for magnetite crystallization to drastically change magma δ56Fe, we observe no change in whole rock δ56Fe above and below magnetite saturation. We also observe no systematic change in whole rock δ56Fe with increasing stratigraphic height, and only a small variation in δ56Fe in magnetite separates above magnetite saturation. Whole rock δ56Fe (errors twice standard deviation, ±2σ) throughout the UUMZ ranges from −0.01 ±0.03‰ to 0.21 ±0.09‰ (δ56FeaverageWR = 0.10 ±0.09‰; n = 21, isotopically light outlier: δ56FeWR = −0.15‰), and magnetites range from 0.28 ±0.04‰ to 0.86 ±0.07‰ (δ56FeaverageMgt = 0.50 ±0.15‰; n = 20), similar to values previously reported for other layered intrusions. We compare our measured δ56FeWR to a model that incorporates the changing normative mineralogy, calculated temperatures, and published fractionation factors of Fe‐bearing phases throughout the UUMZ and produces δ56FeWR values that evolve only in response to fractional crystallization. Our results show that the Fe isotopic composition of a multiply saturated (multiple phases on the liquidus) magma is unlikely to change significantly during fractional crystallization of magnetite due to the competing fractionation of other Fe‐bearing cumulus phases.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".