Mineral Inclusions in Chromite from the Chromite Deposit in the Kudi Ophiolite, Tibet, Proto‐Tethys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐Al chromite from the Kudi chromitites contains a wide range of mineral inclusions. They include clinopyroxene, amphibole, phlogopite, olivine, orthopyroxene, apatite, base‐metal sulfides, calcite and brucite. The modal abundance of inclusions vary greatly among different grains of chromite. The common inclusions are clinopyroxene and amphibole, which occur as monomineral or polymineral associated with other minerals. The shapes of these inclusions tend to follow the growth plane of host chromite. Mineral assemblages and textures demonstrate that some inclusions (olivine, clinopyroxene) are trapped during magmatic stage, and most of the inclusions (e.g., amphibole, phlogopite) are trapped during recrystallization of chromite. Sulfide inclusions are pentlandite, chalcopyrite and cubanite. They occur either as isolated grains or together with silicate minerals, and formed from the separation of sulfide‐bearing liquid from silicate magma. The parental magma of chromitites contains Al 2 O 3 15.0wt%–16.5wt%, TiO 2 0.30wt%–1.05wt% based on calculation with the composition of chromite, similar to parental magma of high‐Al chromitites from elsewhere and the estimated melt composition is comparable with that of MORB. Considering the high‐Mg olivine in disseminated chromitite and abundant hydrous inclusions, we propose that Kudi chromitites formed beneath a volcanic front during the subduction initiation of Proto‐Tethys.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".