Diamonds from the Diavik Mine: From Formation Through Mantle Residence to Emplacement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The morphology and color of Diavik diamonds, their nitrogen concentrations and δ13C values, and the composition of their mineral inclusions provide insights into the formation of diamonds and the evolution of the mantle root beneath the central Slave craton. The minerals which make up inclusions reflect a largely peridotitic mantle source region (77% peridotitic, 18% eclogitic, 1% ultradeep, and 4% ferropericlase bearing) predominantly composed of garnet-harzburgite. The major element geochemistry of the inclusions indicates that the degree of primary melt depletion during formation of the central Slave cratonic mantle root was distinctly lower than for other cratons worldwide—for example, beneath Yakutia and the Kaapvaal craton. The formation of peridotitic diamonds in the Paleoarchean was likely followed by lithosphere-scale cooling by about 150°C, based on differences in equilibration temperatures for touching and nontouching inclusion pairs and nitrogen aggregation-based residence temperature estimates for their respective diamond hosts. The protolith of the eclogitic diamond substrate likely was basaltic-gabbroic oceanic crust, as shown by trace element patterns that include weak positive EuN anomalies in one garnet and one clinopyroxene inclusion, and a normal mid-ocean ridge basalt (NMORB) signature for the calculated bulk-rock eclogite. The analysis of microinclusions in fibrous diamonds reveals the presence of high-density fluids that span a continuous compositional range between carbonatitic and saline end-members. The diamonds grew from continuously evolving and fractionating melts/fluids that moved through the mantle. Cathodoluminescence imaging of fibrous and clear monocrystalline diamonds indicates that they grew in pulses with intermittent periods of resorption.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".