MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Origin of framesite revisited: Possible implications for the formation of CLIPPIR diamonds

2023· article· en· W4366779118 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth-Science Reviews · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteParagenesisGeologyGeochemistryCratonEclogiteArcheanPopulationOverprintingMantle (geology)PaleontologyMetamorphic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Framesites are polycrystalline diamonds of enigmatic origin, that differ in numerous respects from mono-crystalline diamond varieties. Their textures suggest rapid crystallization, while the low N-aggregation state of some stones and zoning in some garnet inclusions point to a short mantle residence time and formation broadly coeval with the host kimberlite . This differs from the much older (Archean to Proterozoic) ages of peridotitic and most eclogitic diamonds. In contrast to the rarity (~2%) of websteritic inclusions in mono-crystalline diamonds, a high proportion (> 70%) of garnet inclusions in framesites were previously assigned to a websteritic paragenesis . However, websteritic and megacryst garnets show a marked compositional overlap, making a simple chemical distinction between these two parageneses inconclusive. We highlight several lines of evidence linking framesites and the megacryst suite to a common paragenesis. Crystallization of megacrysts, like that of framesites, was broadly coeval with eruption of the host kimberlite, and some megacryst nodules are characterized by quench textures. Megacrysts are grouped into relatively Cr-rich and Cr-poor sub-populations that may occur within a single hand specimen. Likewise, relatively Cr-rich and Cr-poor garnet inclusions are reported in framesites, occasionally even within the same diamond host. Framesites from individual localities are characterized by closely similar, highly diagnostic C-isotopic signatures, with a majority enriched in 12 C (modal δ 13 C o / oo of −18 to −19) relative to peridotitic and eclogitic diamonds. However, each locality invariably has a sub-population with C-isotopic signatures closer to typical mantle values (−5). Like framesites, large exceptional (CLIPPIR) Type II diamonds from the Cullinan and Letseng kimberlites are dominated by relatively 12 C-rich isotopic signatures, but also include a subordinate population closer to typical mantle signatures (−5). Several lines of evidence are inconsistent with a sub-lithospheric provenance model for these valuable stones. The remarkable similarity of their C-isotopic signatures to those of framesite diamonds points to a common paragenesis, thus also linking them to the megacryst suite. The large size (> 10 mm) of many of the CLIPPIR Type II stones is consistent with such a linkage, as is the evidence that crystallization of CLIPPIR Type II diamonds was broadly coeval with emplacement of the host kimberlite. We present a magmatic model of CLIPPIR diamond crystallization at the low temperature extreme of the megacryst suite, which formed in a pegmatitic vein network surrounding a pooled magma body within the lithosphere. Late-stage (evolved) megacryst magmas would be Ca- and carbonate rich, providing a chemical environment favourable for the crystallization of breyite under lithospheric P-T conditions.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score0.673

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.243 · 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