Petrogenesis and Geochemical Evolution of Dhauladhar and Dalhousie Granites, NW Himalayas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whole rock geochemical analysis has been carried out on samples from Dhauladhar and Dalhousie granites of the northwestern region of Himalayas. The mineral assemblage of these granites is K-feldspar, plagioclase, and biotite, with Dhauladhar granite being richer in plagioclase and biotite than the Dalhousie granites. The Dhauladhar granites are mostly coarse to medium-grained porphyritic, variably mylonatized and biotite bearing whereas, the Dalhousie granites are fine-grained two-mica granites. The silica-rich (SiO2=64–72 wt %) Dhauladhar granites have a potassic (K2O/Na2O> 0.9–1.8) and peraluminous (A/CNK=1.03–1.3) character. Dalhousie granites show a similar character, albeit to a different degree (SiO2=69–74 wt %), (K2O/Na2O > 1.1–1.5), (A/CNK=1.3–1.7). The Dalhousie granites are richer in, U, Th, and LREE, yet extremely depleted in Sr, Ba, Nb. They have flatter REE patterns with comparatively strong Eu anomaly (Eu/Eu*=0.02–0.04). The Rb/Ba vs Rb/Sr and CaO/Na2O vs Al2O/TiO2 ratios indicate sedimentary source with the psammitic nature for Dhauladhar and pelitic nature for Dalhousie granites. However, the Eu/Eu* value indicates that plagioclase abundance is greater in Dhauladhar granites than in Dalhousie granites. The present study suggests that Dalhousie granites being more evolved than Dahuladhar granites.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".