A comparison of trace element concentrations in chromite from komatiites, picrites, and layered intrusions: implications for the formation of massive chromite layers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By examining the minor and trace element contents of chromites from three intrusions—the Bushveld Complex (South Africa), the Stillwater Complex (USA), and the Great Dyke (Zimbabwe)—and comparing these chromite compositions with those of magmas from which they could have formed (komatiites and picrites) we conclude that ( i) the variations in Ti, V, Sc, and Ga contents across stratigraphy and across individual layers do not support the model of magma mixing leading to chromite-only crystallization, ( ii) the chromites from the lowest levels of the intrusions could have crystallized from komatiite liquids that were contaminated with continental crust, ( iii) the Great Dyke chromites have the highest Cr# and lowest incompatible element contents and formed from a liquid closest to komatiite, ( iv) all of the chromites, except those of the Dunite Succession of the Great Dyke have equilibrated with a liquid that also had crystallized pyroxene, ( v) the Great Dyke and Stillwater chromites show a narrower range in composition than the Bushveld chromites, and ( vi) Chromites from the western limb of the Bushveld Complex contain much higher V contents than all the other chromites. This requires either, that the oxygen fugacity ( fO2) was lower in the western Bushveld or that the chromites equilibrated with a V-rich magma. We favor a model where chromite and silicate minerals crystallized in cotectic proportions (∼2:98). The chromite, silicates, and transporting liquid are emplaced into the magma chamber. During emplacement the chromite and silicate separated due to viscous particle flow to form a massive chromite layer overlain by silicates.
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 | 0.001 | 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".