Pressure–temperature–time evolution of subducted crust revealed by complex garnet zoning (Theodul Glacier Unit, Switzerland)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Collisional orogens commonly include mono‐metamorphic and poly‐metamorphic units, and their different evolution can be difficult to recognize and reconcile. The Theodul Glacier Unit (TGU) in the Western Alps consists of an association of metasedimentary and metamafic rocks embedded within the Zermatt‐Saas tectonic unit. In spite of recent petrological studies, it remains unclear whether these rocks underwent one or multiple metamorphic cycles. In this study, different lithologies from the TGU unit (mafic schist, mafic granofels, and chloritoid schist) were investigated for petrography, quantitative compositional mapping of garnet, thermodynamic modelling, and Lu–Hf garnet dating. The data reveal a coherent mono‐metamorphic history with a β‐shaped pressure–temperature (P–T) path characteristic of oceanic subduction. Garnet Lu–Hf ages yield a restricted garnet crystallization time window between 50.3 and 48.8 Ma (±0.5%, 2SD). A prograde metamorphic stage recorded in garnet cores yields conditions of 490 ± 15℃ and 1.75 ± 0.05 GPa. Maximum pressure conditions of 2.65 ± 0.10 GPa and 580 ± 15℃ were reached at 50.3 ± 0.3 Ma. Initial exhumation was rapid and led to isothermal decompression to 1.50 ± 0.10 GPa within 1 Ma. This decompression was associated with lawsonite breakdown in mafic schist and in mafic granofels, causing intense fluid–rock interaction within and between different lithologies. This process is recorded in garnet textures and trace element patterns, and in the major element composition of K‐white mica. Initial exhumation was followed by re‐heating of ~30℃ at a pressure of 1.50 ± 0.10 GPa. Perturbation of the subduction‐zone thermal structure may be related to upwelling of hot asthenospheric mantle material and transient storage of the unit at the crust–mantle boundary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".