MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040286738 · doi:10.3390/min10070597

Ruby Deposits: A Review and Geological Classification

2020· review· en· W3040286738 on OpenAlexaff
Gaston Giuliani, Lee A. Groat, Anthony E. Fallick, Isabella Pignatelli, Vincent Pardieu

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryXenolithBasaltMetamorphic rockFelsicKimberliteMaficAlkali basaltCorundumIgneous rockPhenocrystZirconCratonVolcanic rockMineralogyVolcanoMantle (geology)Paleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Corundum is not uncommon on Earth but the gem varieties of ruby and sapphire are relatively rare. Gem corundum deposits are classified as primary and secondary deposits. Primary deposits contain corundum either in the rocks where it crystallized or as xenocrysts and xenoliths carried by magmas to the Earth’s surface. Classification systems for corundum deposits are based on different mineralogical and geological features. An up-to-date classification scheme for ruby deposits is described in the present paper. Ruby forms in mafic or felsic geological environments, or in metamorphosed carbonate platforms but it is always associated with rocks depleted in silica and enriched in alumina. Two major geological environments are favorable for the presence of ruby: (1) amphibolite to medium pressure granulite facies metamorphic belts and (2) alkaline basaltic volcanism in continental rifting environments. Primary ruby deposits formed from the Archean (2.71 Ga) in Greenland to the Pliocene (5 Ma) in Nepal. Secondary ruby deposits have formed at various times from the erosion of metamorphic belts (since the Precambrian) and alkali basalts (from the Cenozoic to the Quaternary). Primary ruby deposits are subdivided into two types based on their geological environment of formation: (Type I) magmatic-related and (Type II) metamorphic-related. Type I is characterized by two sub-types, specifically Type IA where xenocrysts or xenoliths of gem ruby of metamorphic (sometimes magmatic) origin are hosted by alkali basalts (Madagascar and others), and Type IB corresponding to xenocrysts of ruby in kimberlite (Democratic Republic of Congo). Type II also has two sub-types; metamorphic deposits sensu stricto (Type IIA) that formed in amphibolite to granulite facies environments, and metamorphic-metasomatic deposits (Type IIB) formed via high fluid–rock interaction and metasomatism. Secondary ruby deposits, i.e., placers are termed sedimentary-related (Type III). These placers are hosted in sedimentary rocks (soil, rudite, arenite, and silt) that formed via erosion, gravity effect, mechanical transport, and sedimentation along slopes or basins related to neotectonic motions and deformation.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207