MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3195334850 · doi:10.22067/econg.v13i1.84933

Geochemistry, origin and anatexis temperature of monzogranite formation in Mount Khalaj (Mashhad, Iran)

2021· article· en· W3195334850 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ramin Samadi, Ghodrat Torabi, Hassan Mirnejad

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnatexisGeologyGeochemistryMountPetrogenesisPetrologyPartial meltingMantle (geology)Engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Granitoids are the main rock units in the continental crust. Study of granitoids reveals significant information on tectonic mantle and upper crust. Many researchers have investigated petrogenesis and origin of granitoids (e.g., Chappell and White, 2001; Barbarin, 1999; Frost et al., 2001). For example, Chappell and White (1992), Pitcher (1993) and Chappell et al., (1998) have divided granites into two major groups of: (1) I-type granites (high-temperature or Cordellerian granitoids, including low-K granitoid to high-Ca tonalite, without inherited zircons) formed by partial melting of mafic rocks at >1000 ℃ in mantle or subduction zones of continental margins, and (2) S-type (low-temperature or Caledonian granitoids with inherited zircons) granites formed by partial melting of felsic crust at ~700-800 ℃. Northeast of Iran is a key location for studying the Cimmerian Orogeny, which is related to the Late Triassic collision between it and Eurasia, and the closure of the Paleo-Tethys (Samadi et al., 2014). Mesozoic Mashhad granitoids have cropped out along with the Paleo-Tethys suture zone. Distinct granitoid suites, i.e., monzogranite, granodiorite, tonalite, and diorite occur in Mount Khalaj located in the south of Mashhad. It comprises of monzogranite and granodiorite. However, monzogranite is the most abundant. To study the plutonic events during the Turan and Central Iran collision, the origin and tectonic setting of monzogranite of Mount Khalaj are investigated in this study based on whole rock geochemical data. Materials and methods This research study is based on field studies and petrography. Fresh thin sections samples were selected for geochemical analysis. Whole rock composition was measured on pressed powder tablets by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) using a Philips PW 1480 wavelength dispersive spectrometer with a Rh-anode X-ray tube and a 3 MeV electron beam Van de Graaff Accelerator, at the center for Geological Survey of Iran. The trace element data of a sample was measured at the Activation Laboratories, Ontario, Canada (ActLabs). Samples were digested by lithium metaborate/tetraborate fusion and analyzed with a Perkin Elmer Sciex ELAN 6000, 6100 or 9000 ICP/MS. GCDkit 4.1 and CorelDraw software packages were used for plotting diagrams and calculation of saturation temperatures. Results The Khalaj granitoid is mineralogically composed of quartz, potassic feldspar, plagioclase, mica, and accessory minerals of zircon and apatite. Geochemically, it is an unaltered acidic intrusion with ~72-73 wt.% SiO2. It is a granitoid (monzogranite) based on various classification diagrams (e.g., Cox et al., 1979; etc.). It shows the peraluminous nature (A/CNK~ 1.08-1.24) with negative Eu anomaly of ~0.62-0.73 (Eu/Eu*<1), low HREE and high LREE and LILE contents. Discussion Geochemically, the low HREE and high LREE and LILE content in the Mount Khalaj monzogranite indicate a more differentiated melt for it. Monzogranite samples from the Khalaj-Khajeh Morad regions are similar to ferroan alkali-calcic, felsic peraluminous S-type granitoids based on discrimination diagrams by various researchers (e.g., Chappell and White, 2001; Villaseca et al., 1998). In fact, the Mount Khalaj monzogranite is a collisional granite (based on diagrams by: Batchelor and Bowden, 1985; Sahin et al., 2004), produced by anatexis and partial melting of felsic upper crust pelitic sediments (based on diagrams by: Almeida et al., 2007; Patiño Douce, 1999). It is classified as a low-temperature S-type granite formed at 730-800 ℃ (based on the diagram of Rapp and Watson, 1995), with TZr of ~732-745 ℃ (by using GCDKit software). Therefore, S-type syn- to post-collisional Mount Khalaj monzogranite is a consequence of partial melting (anatexis) of hydrous sedimentary rocks of upper crust after Paleo-Tethys subduction under Turan plate and continental collision and compressional tectonism. References Almeida, M.E., Macambira, M.J.B. and Oliveira, E.C., 2007. Geochemistry and zircon geochronology of the I-type high-K calc-alkaline and S-type granitoid rocks from southeastern Roraima, Brazil: Orosirian collisional magmatism evidence (1.97-1.96 Ga) in central portion of Guyana Shield. Precambrian Research, 155(1–2): 69–97. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.precamres.2007.01.004 Barbarin, B., 1999. A review of the relationships between granitoid types, their origin and their geodynamic environments. Lithos, 46(3): 605–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0024-4937(98)00085-1 Batchelor, R.A. and Bowden, P., 1985. Petrogenetic interpretation of granitoid rocks series using multicationic parameters. Chemical Geology, 48(1–4): 43–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/0009-2541(85)90034-8 Chappell, B.W. and White, A.J.R. 2001. Two contrasting granite types: 25 years later. Australian Journal of Earth Sciences, 48: 489–499. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1440-0952.2001.00882.x Chappell, B.W. and White, A.J.R., 1992. I- and S-type granites in the Lachlan fold belt. Earth and Envioronmental Sciennce Transactions of The Royal Society Edinburgh, 83(1–2): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263593300007720 Chappell, B.W., Bryant, C.J., Wyborn, D., White, A.J.R. and Williams, I.S., 1998. High- and low-temperature I-type granites. Resource Geology, 48(4): 225–236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-3928.1998.tb00020.x Cox, K.G., Bell, J.S. and Pankhurst, R.J., 1979. The interpretation of igneous rocks. Allen and Unwin, London, 450 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3373-1 Frost, B.R., Barnes, C.G., Collins, W.J., Arculus, S.R.J., Ellis, D.J. and Frost, C.D., 2001. A geochemical classification for granitic rocks. Journal of Petrology, 42(11): 2033–2048. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/42.11.2033 Patiño Douce, A.E., 1999. What do experiments tell us about the relative contributions of crust and mantle to the origins of granitic magmas? Geological Society, London, Special Publication, 168: 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1144/GSL.SP.1999.168.01.05 Pitcher, W.A.S., 1993. The nature and origin of granite. Chapman and Hall, London, 321 pp. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5832-9 Rapp, R.P. and Watson, E.B., 1995. Dehydration melting of metabasalt at 8–32 kbar: Implications for continental growth and crust-mantle recycling. Journal of Petrology, 36(4): 891–931. https://doi.org/10.1093/petrology/36.4.891 Sahin, S.Y., Güngör, Y. and Boztuğ, D., 2004. Comparative petrogenetic investigation of Composite Kaçkar Batholith granitoids in Eastern Pontide magmatic arc-Northern Turkey. Earth, Planet and Space, 56(4): 429–446. https://doi.org/10.1186/BF03352496 Samadi, R., Mirnejad, H., Kawabata, H., Valizadeh, M.V., Harris, C. and Gazel, E., 2014. Magmatic garnet in the Triassic (215 Ma) Dehnow pluton of NE Iran and its petrogenetic significance. International Geology Review, 56(5): 596–621. https://doi.org/10.1080/00206814.2014.880659 Villaseca, C., Barbero, L. and Herreros, V., 1998. A re-examination of the typology of peraluminous granite types in intracontinental orogenic belts. Earth and Envioronmental Sciennce Transactions of The Royal Society Edinburgh, 89(2): 113–119. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0263593300007045

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→