MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220676361 · doi:10.1130/b36230.1

Two magma fractionation paths for continental crust growth: Insights from the adakite-like and normal-arc granites in the Ailaoshan fold belt (SW Yunnan, China)

2022· article· en· W4220676361 on OpenAlexaff
Jian Xu, Xiaoping Xia, Qiang Wang, Christopher J. Spencer, Chun–Kit Lai, Le Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America Bulletin · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryZirconContinental crustDioriteSubductionMantle wedgeAdakiteFractional crystallization (geology)Mantle (geology)Continental arcLithophileLilePartial meltingCrustOceanic crustPetrologyVolcanic rockPaleontologyTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Geochemical similarities between the continental crust and arc magmas have led to the inference that subduction zones may be the primary sites of crustal growth. Thus, it is necessary to unravel the petrogenetic mechanism(s) of granitoid generation in subduction-related settings to understand crustal growth through magmatic differentiation processes. In this study, we focused on granitoid generation in oceanic-continental subduction zones. We analyzed the whole-rock geochemistry and Sr-Nd isotopes, together with zircon U-Pb-Hf-O isotopes, of the newly identified Middle Triassic granitoids in the Ailaoshan high-grade metamorphic complex (Yunnan, SW China). All the studied granite samples were characterized by large ion lithophile element (e.g., Rb, Sr, and Ba) enrichments and high field strength element (e.g., Nb, Ta, and Ti) depletions, similar to arc-type rocks. They also showed a range of whole-rock Sr-Nd, (87Sr/86Sr)i = 0.7020–0.7048, εNd(t) = +0.6 to +4.2, and zircon Hf-O, εHf(t) = +10.3 to +18.1, δ18Ozircon = 5.09‰–6.65‰, isotope compositions, which overlap with those of previously reported coeval (ca. 237–235 Ma) hornblende diorite and granodiorite, the formation of which was interpreted to have originated from a mantle wedge metasomatized by a sediment-derived melt. Furthermore, the fractionation trends of some of the granitic samples and diorite-granodiorite suite overlap. They can be divided into two geochemical groups: Group 1 has intermediate to high SiO2 (66.9–73.8 wt%) and K2O (3.40–5.42 wt%) and low MgO (0.19–1.09 wt%) contents and shows depletion in heavy rare earth elements (HREEs; e.g., Yb and Y), resulting in adakite-like high Sr/Y (61–183) and La/Yb (47–90) ratios. Group 1 shows positive SiO2 versus Sr/Y and La/Yb correlations and negative SiO2 versus HREE and Y correlations, implying fractionation of a garnet-bearing assemblage. The negative correlations between SiO2 and εNd(t) and Nb/La reveal a crustal assimilation trend. Group 2 has relatively high SiO2 (72.6–76.5 wt%) and low K2O (1.93–3.82 wt%) and MgO (0.05–0.83 wt%) contents and shows depletion in middle REEs (MREEs; e.g., Gd and Dy) with low Sr/Y (1–10) and La/Yb (4–11) ratios. Group 2 granites show negative Gd/Yb versus SiO2 correlation, which indicates significant fractionation of an amphibole-bearing assemblage. Our results suggest that both group 1 and 2 granites were formed in a subduction setting from a common mantle-derived parental dioritic magma, but they experienced two distinct fractionation processes. While group 1 granites were likely formed by crustal assimilation and high-pressure (lower-crustal) garnet-dominated fractionation, group 2 granites were generated through low-pressure (middle-/upper-crustal) amphibole-/plagioclase-dominated fractionation. We suggest that these two fractionation trends are critical to crustal growth and the development of a more fractionated (felsic) upper crust.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America BulletinSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207