Comparison of metamorphic zircons from granulite xenoliths and granulite terrain in northern North China Craton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We conduct a study of petrography, geochronology, trace element and Hf isotope compositions on zircons from granulite terrain and granulite xenoliths in the Zhangjiakou region, northern North China Craton. Most zircons from both types of granulite have core-rim structure in their CL images. All the magmatic zircon cores yield essentially identical ∼2.5 Ga ages, whereas metamorphic zircons yield ages of ∼1.85 Ga and 120–140 Ma, respectively. Most the ∼1.85 Ga metamorphic zircons have Th/U ratios lower than 0.4 with a range of 0.01 to 0.63. However, the range of Th/U ratios of Mesozoic (120–140 Ma) metamorphic zircons (0.12–3.48) overlaps that of the magmatic zircons (0.12–2.44). The Mesozoic and ∼1.85 Ga metamorphic zircons have REE patterns consistent with magmatic zircons, except that the ∼1.85 Ga ones show less enrichments and much less negative Eu anomalies than those of magmatic zircons. Therefore, Th/U ratios and the REE patterns cannot be used to distinguish metamorphic zircons from magmatic ones. The ∼1.85 Ga metamorphic zircons, however, have lower formation temperatures, oxygen fugacity and 176 Lu/ 177 Hf ratios than the Mesozoic ones. We speculate that the ∼1.85 Ga metamorphic zircons represent newly grown zircons coexisting with garnets and melt/fluid while the Mesozoic metamorphic zircons were formed quickly without the presence of garnet. The Mesozoic metamorphic zircons vary in their origins; some of these zircons were metamorphic newly grown while the others experienced recrystallization from a U-depleted melt/fluid. Our results suggest that P-T conditions, the melt/fluid and oxygen fugacity play important roles in controlling the trace element distribution and Hf isotope compositions of metamorphic zircons in the granulites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".