MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293777274 · doi:10.1093/petrology/egac081

<b>Mg–Fe Isotopes Link the Geochemical Complexity of the Coldwell Complex, Midcontinent Rift to Metasomatic Processes in the Mantle</b>

2022· article· en· W4293777274 on OpenAlexaff
Matthew J. Brzozowski, David Good, Weihao Yan, Chang‐Zhi Wu, Shichao An, Weiqiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Petrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLakehead University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMetasomatismGeologyGeochemistryMantle (geology)MaficPrimitive mantleFractional crystallization (geology)Ultramafic rockPartial meltingBasalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mafic intrusions in the Coldwell Complex have previously been interpreted as forming from a metasomatized mantle source. To build upon our understanding of this metasomatism, the Mg–Fe isotope compositions of these rocks have been determined, and variations are assessed with respect to the magmatic processes that could have occurred at different stages of their formation. The mineralized Marathon Series (δ26Mg = −0.28‰ to −0.19‰), associated metabasalt (δ26Mg = −0.24‰ to −0.23‰), and the Geordie Lake gabbro (δ26Mg = −0.31‰ to −0.22‰) are characterized by δ26Mg values that are within the range of mantle values, whereas the unmineralized Layered Series (δ26Mg = −0.2‰ to −0.05‰) is heavier than mantle. In contrast, the δ56Fe values of all the Coldwell basaltic–gabbroic rocks (δ56Fe = 0.07 ± 0.08‰) are heavier than mantle but within the range of terrestrial basalts and mafic–ultramafic layered intrusions. We propose that the Mg–Fe isotope compositions of these rocks was not significantly modified by processes such as partial melting or garnet retention/fractionation in the mantle, fractional crystallization, or contamination during ascent through the crust, as the isotope values do not correlate with proxies for these processes (e.g. La/Sm and La/Yb, Gd/Yb, MgO–CaO–TiO2, and Th/Nb and Th/La, respectively). Their isotope compositions are, therefore, proposed to reflect the compositions of their metasomatized mantle sources. We conclude that metasomatism was not caused by a carbonate melt, subduction-altered oceanic crust and sediments, or an evolved silicate melt, as these processes generate light δ26Mg, variably fractionated δ56Fe, and heavy δ56Fe values, respectively, which are not observed in our dataset for the Coldwell Complex. The agent that metasomatized the mantle beneath the Coldwell Complex was likely slab-derived fluids characterized by isotopically heavy δ26Mg and basaltic δ56Fe values. This scenario can account for the lack of Fe isotope fractionation from basaltic values in all of the Coldwell rocks. The variably heavier δ26Mg of the Layered Series (−0.20 ± 0.01‰ to −0.05 ± 0.05‰) relative to the mantle (−0.25 ± 0.07‰) suggests that the magmas for the Coldwell rocks were derived by tapping of an isotopically heterogeneous mantle source that had undergone variable degrees of metasomatism. The distinctive geochemistry of mafic sequences in the Coldwell and numerous mafic dykes located in the northeast shoulder of the Midcontinent Rift suggests the presence of a variably metasomatized mantle source beneath a large area of the rift.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of PetrologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207