Sintering as a key process in the textural evolution of chromitite seams in layered mafic-ultramafic intrusions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Nearly monomineralic stratiform chromitite seams of variable thickness (millimeters to meters) occur in many of the world's layered mafic-ultramafic intrusions. These seams are often associated with economically significant quantities of platinum group metals, yet the petrogenesis of these societally important materials remains enigmatic. Here we evaluate processes associated with late-magmatic (postcumulus) textural maturation of chromitite seams from four layered mafic-ultramafic intrusions of different ages and sizes. From largest to smallest, these intrusions are the ∼2060 Ma Bushveld Complex (South Africa), the ∼2710 Ma Stillwater Complex (USA), the ∼1270 Ma Muskox Intrusion (Canada), and the ∼60 Ma Rum Eastern Layered Intrusion (Scotland). Three endmember chromitite textures are described, based on chromite grain size and degree of textural equilibration: (1) coarse-grained chromite crystals (>0.40 mm) that occur in the central portions of seams and exhibit high degrees of solid-state textural equilibration; (2) fine-grained chromite crystals (0.11–0.44 mm) at the margins of seams in contact with and disseminated throughout host anorthosite or pyroxenite; and (3) fine-grained chromite crystals (0.005–0.28 mm) hosted within intra-seam orthopyroxene, clinopyroxene, and olivine oikocrysts. Crystal size distribution and spatial distribution pattern analyses are consistent with coarsening occurring through processes of textural maturation, including the sintering of grains by coalescence. We propose that textural maturation initially occurred in the supra-solidus state followed by an important stage of solid-state textural maturation and that these equilibration processes played a major role in the eventual microstructural and compositional homogeneity of the chromitite seams.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".