Petrogenesis and mode of emplacement of a Neoarchean tonalite–trondhjemite–diorite suite: the Eau Jaune Complex, Abitibi greenstone belt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magmatism during the maturation phase of Archean greenstone belts produced voluminous tonalite–trondhjemite–granodiorite (TTG) suites, as well as a lesser amount of tonalite–trondhjemite–diorite (TTD) suites. Such TTD suites have recently been recognized in the Archean Abitibi greenstone belt, on the southern flank of the Superior Craton, Canada, but their source(s), differentiation processes, and depths of emplacement remain poorly constrained. The Neoarchean Eau Jaune Complex lies in the northeastern corner of the Abitibi greenstone belt and represents one of the most voluminous tonalite-dominated and diorite-bearing intrusive suites of the Chibougamau region. This TTD suite comprises six intrusive phases with distinct petrology and chemistry. All units were emplaced as laccolith-like intrusions injected along discontinuities within the volcanic succession at ca. 2724 Ma (U–Pb zircon dating), during the synvolcanic interval (i.e., construction and maturation phase), at a depth of approximately 7–8 km. The most heavy rare-earth element (HREE)-depleted phases (granodiorite, tonalite, and trondhjemite) correspond to magmas that fractionated amphibole and were likely produced by partial melting of a garnet- and titanate-bearing amphibolite, akin to TTG magmas. The least HREE-depleted phases are dioritic in composition and correspond to mantle-derived magmas that may have interacted with TTG melts. This indicates interaction between coeval mantle-derived and crustal melts during the maturation phase of the Abitibi greenstone belt. Models formulated to address the geodynamic evolution of greenstone belts must account for the coeval production of basalt-derived (TTG suites) and mantle-derived (tholeiitic magmatism) melts occasionally interacting to form TTD suites.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".