Spatial variations in lead isotopes, Tasman Element, eastern Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lead isotope data from ore deposits and mineral occurrences in the Tasman Element of eastern Australia have been used to construct isotopic maps of this region. These maps exhibit systematic patterns in parameters derived from isotope ratios. The parameters include μ (238U/204Pb), as calculated using the Cumming and Richards (1975) lead evolution model, and the difference between true age of mineralisation and the Cumming and Richards lead isotope model age of mineralisation (Δt). Variations in μ coincide with boundaries at the orogen, subprovince and zone scales. The boundary between the Lachlan and New England orogens is accompanied by a decrease in μ, and within the Lachlan Orogen, the Central Subprovince is characterised by μ that is significantly higher than in the adjacent Eastern and Western subprovinces. Within the Eastern Subprovince, the Cu-Au-rich Macquarie Arc is characterised by significantly lower μ relative to adjacent rocks. The Macquarie Arc is also characterised by very high Δt (generally above 200 Myr). Other regions characterised by very high Δt include western Tasmania, the southeastern New England Orogen, and the Hodgkinson Province in northern Queensland. These anomalies are within a broad pattern of decreasing Δt from east to west, with Paleozoic deposits within or adjacent to Proterozoic crust characterised by Δt values of 50 Myr or below. The patterns in Δt are interpreted to reflect the presence of the two major tectonic components involved in the Paleozoic Tasman margin in Australia (cf., Münker, 2000): subducting proto-Pacific crust (Δt >150 Myr), and Proterozoic Australia crust (Δt < 50 Myr) on the over-riding plate. Proterozoic Australia crustal sources are interpreted to dominate the western parts of the Tasman Element and Proterozoic crust further to the west, whereas Pacific crustal sources are inferred to characterise western Tasmania and much of the eastern part of the Tasman Element. Contrasts in Δt between the Cambrian Mount Read Volcanics in western Tasmania and similar aged rocks in western Victoria and New South Wales make direct tectonic correlation between these rocks problematic.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".