MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981180139 · doi:10.5382/av100.07

Diamonds<subtitle>Crustal Distribution and Formation Processes in Time and Space and an Integrated Deposit Model</subtitle>

2005· book-chapter· en· W2981180139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. J. Gurney, Herwart Helmstaedt, Anton P. le Roex, Tom Nowicki, Kalle Westerlund, Steve Richardson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtitlePublishingPolitical scienceGeologyEconomic historyHistoryLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Diamonds have been brought to the Earth’s surface from at least 2.82 Ga onward by igneous and tectonic processes, and they have been redistributed since then by sedimentary processes into secondary diamond deposits. None of the known tectonically emplaced diamond deposits are economically viable, and only two types of igneous rock, kimberlite and lamproite, sometimes carry diamonds and can occasionally be economic to mine. Where diamonds are present in kimberlite and lamproite, the concentrations are –3 ppm, acquired by random sampling of diamond source rocks in the subcontinental lithosphere. Diamond-forming processes in the lithosphere were episodic since ~3.57 Ga, and all primary diamond deposits show evidence of two or more diamond generations. The earliest diamond-forming episode at ~3.4 ± 0.2 Ga appears to have been a worldwide metasomatic event triggered by CO2-rich, probably subduction-derived fluids that produced diamonds associated with garnet harzburgite. Further diamond populations have formed in association with craton accretion, subduction, slab melting, magmatic modifications of the lithospheric mantle, obduction tectonics, and metasomatic infiltration. In the process, diamonds formed in association with metasomatized harzburgite were supplemented predominantly by metasomatic diamond growth in eclogite, with occasional significant contributions from grospyditic, lherzolitic, and websteritic sources as well as sublithospheric ultradeep sources, notably majorite. Diamond-bearing igneous bodies exploit preexisting zones of weakness in the crust. They probably traverse most of the distance from the mantle to the surface as thin dikes or dike swarms, with nearurface expressions dictated by multiple intrusions, their volatile content, the presence or absence of cap rocks, local structures, and the ambient stress field, interaction with ground water , and degrees of preservation from erosion. Average diamond values per carat for a given diamond occurrence vary by approximately three orders of magnitude (US$1-$1,000/carat). A multistage model for the formation of diamond deposits is presented for the Kaapvaal craton that takes into account the tectonic history of the craton as well as the complexities observed within diamond populations of its various primary diamond deposits. Although the details of this model are craton specific, the general features of the model are applicable to other cratons.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.027

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations57
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207