MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3122205016

Lu-Hf and Ar-Ar Chronometry Supports Extreme Rate of Subduction Zone Metamorphism Deduced from Geospeedometry

2001· article· en· W3122205016 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Pascal Philippot, Janne Blichert‐Toft, A. L. Perchuk, S. Costa, V. G. Gerasimov

Bibliographic record

VenueEleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt Conference · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhengiteMetamorphismGeologyGeochemistryZirconMetamorphic rockSubductionMineralogyEclogitePaleontologyTectonics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Recent diffusion modeling of eclogitic garnets from the Great Caucasus, Russia, and Yukon, Canada, have shown that the preservation of garnet growth zoning in rocks that have equilibrated at high temperature (680–700 °C) is possible only if rates of pressure and temperature change on the burial and/or exhumation paths are in the order of several cm/year and several hundreds of °C/Ma. In order to confirm this observation, we performed Lu–Hf and Sm–Nd dating of garnet and Ar–Ar dating of mica on the same samples that were used for geospeedometry measurements in an earlier study. In both localities, garnet grew during prograde metamorphism at 690±40 °C and >1.5 GPa (Yukon) and 680±40 °C and >1.6 GPa (Great Caucasus). In contrast, phengite formed soon after the main eclogitic foliation at 520±50 °C (Yukon) and 600±40 °C (Great Caucasus). Garnet of the Yukon samples yielded Lu–Hf ages of 252±7, 255±7, 257±6 and 264±6 Ma that fall within error of phengite Ar–Ar integrated ages of 261±2 (laser spot date) and 256±3 Ma (age of mineral separates). No Sm–Nd ages were measured on the Yukon samples. For Great Caucasus samples, all Sm–Nd ages with the exception of one garnet–whole rock pair yielding a Sm–Nd age of 311±22 Ma are poorly constrained. In contrast, the Lu–Hf garnet chronometer yields ages of 322±14, 316±5 and 296±11 Ma that again fall within error of the phengite Ar–Ar mean age of 303±5 Ma. Because the geospeedometry approach provides information on cooling rates, information on the closure temperature of a given isotopic system can be extracted from the analytical solution of Dodson [Contrib. Mineral. Petrol. 40 (1973) 259] using appropriate sets of experimentally determined diffusion data. The results of these calculations indicate that uncertainties of more than 200 °C are to be expected for the Sm–Nd and Lu–Hf closure temperatures for both the Great Caucasus (750±150 °C) and Yukon samples (710±120 °C). In all cases, calculated closure temperatures are equivalent to or in the upper range of peak metamorphic temperatures. With respect to Ar, calculated closure temperatures of 570 °C for the Yukon eclogites and 560–600 °C for the Great Caucasus eclogites are within error of the temperatures of the early stage of cooling and/or exhumation. These results indicate that the eclogitic rocks experienced a minimum cooling and exhumation of about 150 °C and 25 km in a time interval smaller than the errors on the ages. The fact that garnet and phengite yield indistinguishable Lu–Hf and Ar–Ar ages is in good agreement with the observation deduced from geospeedometry that the time elapsed at eclogitic conditions should be extremely short (of the order of 1 Ma). Considering the exceptional precision of the age information obtained on eclogitic garnet using the Lu–Hf technique and that Lu–Hf, Ar–Ar and geospeedometry approaches were carried out the same samples, these results suggest that the time-scale resolution required for unraveling rates of high-pressure metamorphism remains out of reach of current thermochronological methods.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.021
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEleventh Annual V. M. Goldschmidt ConferenceSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207