MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF DIAMONDS IN NON-KIMBERLITIC ROCKS OF THE WORLD AND NEOGENE SANDS OF UKRAINE

2023· article· en· W4323022655 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V.M. Kvasnytsya

Bibliographic record

VenueMineralogical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryKimberliteNeogenePlacer depositArcheanDiamondPlacer miningMantle (geology)ConglomerateXenolithSedimentary rockPaleontologyChemistryStructural basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diamond mineralogy from a number of different non-kimberlitic occurrences of the world was analyzed and a comparison to diamonds from Neogene placers of Ukraine was made. Diamonds from lamprophyres of the Canadian Shield, metakomatiites of the Guiana and West African Shields, and ultra-metamorphic rocks in Asian, European and African continental occurrences were considered. In general, Ukrainian Neogene placer diamonds have many similar mineralogical features to diamonds from lamprophyres and metakomatiites, which differ little from diamonds from kimberlites and lamproites. Ukrainian placer diamonds are characterized by their micron sizes (≤0.5 mm), many of them are colored and have a cubic habit and nitrogen-free compositions, relatively frequent spectral Ib and Iаb types, and orange photoluminescence behavior. In addition, many diamonds are characterized by a relatively high content of hydrocarbons (i.e., CH2, CH3 groups and bonds >C=CH2), OH groups, also C=O, N-H, CO3, NO3-groups. This is evidence for a volatile-rich environment during the diamond crystallization. The formation of diamonds from lamprophyres and metakomatiites, as well as from kimberlites and lamproites, occurred under mantle temperatures and pressures. The relatively recently discovered diamond-bearing lamprophyres and metakomatiites have a number of similarities. They are: i) both formed on the edges of Archean cratonic structures, ii) their old ages (2.7 billion years ago and 1.83 billion years ago for the lamprophyres and 2.2 billion years ago for the metakomatiites), iii) both are strongly metamorphosed, iv) both contain many fragments of rocks of various origins, v) both contain rare xenograins of mantle minerals having diamond-bearing peridotite and eclogite associations, and vi) the diamonds themselves are often microcrystals and many are colored and have a cubic habit. The main difference between diamonds from the lamprophyres and metakomatiites is in their carbon isotopic signatures and their thermal history in the mantle. This is expressed by their different nitrogen contents and the different degree of its aggregation. Diamond-bearing ultrametamorphic rocks are mainly Paleozoic-Mesozoic in age (i.e., 531-92 million years) and occupy a tectonic setting at convergent plate boundaries unlike diamond-bearing lamprophyres and metakomatiites. Diamonds from ultrametamorphic rocks differ from diamonds from lamprophyres and metakomatiites as well as from Ukrainian placer diamonds from Neogene sands in a number of ways.

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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralogical Journal→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→