Petrogenesis of tonalite-dominated intrusive suites of the Abitibi greenstone belt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Archean greenstone belts, such as the Neoarchean Abitibi belt (>2.79 to ~2.65 Ga), Superior craton, Canada, felsic magmatism is dominated by large-volume batholiths, i.e., tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) and tonalite–trondhjemite–diorite (TTD) suites. Insights into the source and partial melting conditions of such intrusive suites provide essential constraints on the tectonic regimes prevailing before 2.5 Ga. Most petrogenetic interpretations rely on whole-rock chemical data. For example, and using a compilation of whole rock chemical data, two coeval magmas were uncovered in the Abitibi belt: 1) a heavy rare earth elements (HREE)-depleted tonalitic magma from high pressure melting of an hydrated basalt source (TTG suite); and 2) a hybrid HREE-undepleted magma that may be a mixture of mantle-derived (tholeiite) and tonalitic melts (TTD suite). Such petrogenetic interpretations, however, tend to neglect the role of differentiation on primitive melt composition. This study used numerical modeling to provide quantitative constraints on the fractional crystallization of TTG suites and to demonstrate that differentiation can significantly affect the chemistry of these magmas. Amphibole fractionation alone is sufficient to explain the range of HREE observed in TTG suites of the Abitibi greenstone belt. As well, the fractional crystallization of amphibole under various temperature conditions explains the contrasting Nb and Ti contents of the studied intrusive phases. Neoarchean tonalite-dominated magmatism likely results from a diversity of petrogenetic processes. Deducing partial melting depth using whole-rock analyses is possible but requires a profound understanding of differentiation processes. The petrogenesis of individual intrusions should thus be interpreted with caution before drawing conclusions on source processes and, by extension, the geodynamic settings.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".