Petrogenesis of the peralkaline Flowers River Igneous Suite and its significance to the development of the southern Nain Batholith
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Flowers River Igneous Suite of north-central Labrador comprises several discrete peralkaline granite ring intrusions and their coeval volcanic succession. The Flowers River Granite was emplaced into Mesoproterozoic-age anorthosite–mangerite–charnockite–granite (AMCG) -affinity rocks at the southernmost extent of the Nain Plutonic Suite coastal lineament batholith. New U–Pb zircon geochronology is presented to clarify the timing and relationships among the igneous associations exposed in the region. Fayalite-bearing AMCG granitoids in the region record ages of 1290 ± 3 Ma, whereas the Flowers River Granite yields an age of 1281 ± 3 Ma. Volcanism occurred in three discrete events, two of which coincided with emplacement of the AMCG and Flowers River suites, respectively. Shared geochemical affinities suggest that each generation of volcanic rocks was derived from its coeval intrusive suite. The third volcanic event occurred at 1271 ± 3 Ma, and its products bear a broad geochemical resemblance to the second phase of volcanism. The surrounding AMCG-affinity ferrodiorites and fayalite-bearing granitoids display moderately enriched major- and trace-element signatures relative to equivalent lithologies found elsewhere in the Nain Plutonic Suite. Trace-element compositions also support a relationship between the Flowers River Granite and its AMCG-affinity host rocks, most likely via delayed partial melting of residual parental material in the lower crust. Enrichment manifested only in the southernmost part of the Nain Plutonic Suite as a result of its relative proximity to multiple Palaeoproterozoic tectonic boundaries. Repeated exposure to subduction-derived metasomatic fluids created a persistent region of enrichment in the underlying lithospheric mantle that was tapped during later melt generation, producing multiple successive moderately to strongly enriched magmatic episodes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".