MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158987624 · doi:10.3390/min11050464

Iron Isotope Compositions of Coexisting Sulfide and Silicate Minerals in Sudbury-Type Ores from the Jinchuan Ni-Cu Sulfide Deposit: A Perspective on Possible Core-Mantle Iron Isotope Fractionation

2021· article· en· W3158987624 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peiyao Wang, Yaoling Niu, Pu Sun, Xiaohong Wang, Pengyuan Guo, Hongmei Gong, Meng Duan, Fangyu Shen, Yining Shi, Yanhong Chen, Li Shan

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China-Shandong Joint FundHigher Education Discipline Innovation ProjectNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China-Shandong Joint Fund for Marine Science Research CentersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeochemistryGeologyPentlanditeSilicateSulfidePyrrhotiteIsotope fractionationMantle (geology)Sulfide mineralsTroiliteOlivinePeridotiteChondriteChalcopyriteRadiogenic nuclideMineralogyFractionationChemistryMeteoritePyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many studies have shown that the average iron (Fe) isotope compositions of mantle-derived rocks, mantle peridotite and model mantle are close to those of chondrites. Therefore, it is considered that chondrite values represent the bulk Earth Fe isotope composition. However, this is a brave assumption because nearly 90% of Fe of the Earth is in the core, where its Fe isotope composition is unknown, but it is required to construct bulk Earth Fe isotope composition. We approach the problem by assuming that the Earth’s core separation can be approximated in terms of the Sudbury-type Ni-Cu sulfide mineralization, where sulfide-saturated mafic magmas segregate into immiscible sulfide liquid and silicate liquid. Their density/buoyancy controlled stratification and solidification produced net-textured ores above massive ores and below disseminated ores. The coexisting sulfide minerals (pyrrhotite (Po) > pentlandite (Pn) > chalcopyrite (Cp)) and silicate minerals (olivine (Ol) > orthopyroxene (Opx) > clinopyroxene (Cpx)) are expected to hold messages on Fe isotope fractionation between the two liquids before their solidification. We studied the net-textured ores of the Sudbury-type Jinchuan Ni-Cu sulfide deposit. The sulfide minerals show varying δ56Fe values (−1.37–−0.74‰ (Po) < 0.09–0.56‰ (Cp) < 0.53–1.05‰ (Pn)), but silicate minerals (Ol, Opx, and Cpx) have δ56Fe values close to chondrites (δ56Fe = −0.01 ± 0.01‰). The heavy δ56Fe value (0.52–0.60‰) of serpentines may reflect Fe isotopes exchange with the coexisting pyrrhotite with light δ56Fe. We obtained an equilibrium fractionation factor of Δ56Fesilicate-sulfide ≈ 0.51‰ between reconstructed silicate liquid (δ56Fe ≈ 0.21‰) and sulfide liquid (δ56Fe ≈ −0.30‰), or Δ56Fesilicate-sulfide ≈ 0.36‰ between the weighted mean bulk-silicate minerals (δ56Fe[0.70ol,0.25opx,0.05cpx] = 0.06‰) with weighted mean bulk-sulfide minerals (δ56Fe ≈ −0.30‰). Our study indicates that significant Fe isotope fractionation does take place between silicate and sulfide liquids during the Sudbury-type sulfide mineralization. We hypothesize that significant iron isotope fractionation must have taken place during core–mantle segregation, and the bulk Earth may have lighter Fe isotope composition than chondrites although Fe isotope analysis on experimental sulfide-silicate liquids produced under the varying mantle depth conditions is needed to test our results. We advocate the importance of further research on the subject. Given the close Fe-Ni association in the magmatic mineralization and the majority of the Earth’s Ni is also in the core, we infer that Ni isotope fractionation must also have taken place during the core separation that needs attention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207