Apatite laser ablation Lu Hf geochronology: A new tool to date mafic rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mafic rocks are the most common type of igneous rocks on Earth, however, constraining the crystallization age of mafic rocks can be challenging. Apatite is a common accessory phase in mafic rocks and is amenable to dating using the UPb system. However, the UPb system in apatite has a relatively low closure temperature (~350°-550 °C) and is therefore prone to resetting by later thermal and metasomatic events. Here, a recently developed LuHf dating method using laser ablation reaction-cell mass spectrometry is applied to apatite from mafic rocks. The LuHf system in apatite has a higher closure temperature (~650°-750 °C) compared to UPb, increasing the chances of obtaining primary crystallization ages. Furthermore, the laser-ablation method allows rapid data collection compared to traditional solution-based LuHf dating techniques. Four study areas were selected to compare the LuHf vs UPb systematics of apatite in mafic igneous rocks: the Paleoproterozoic Sudbury Igneous Complex (Canada), the Neoproterozoic Borborema Province (NE Brazil), the Paleoproterozoic Fennoscandian Shield (Finland), the Archean Yilgarn Craton and Mesoproterozoic Albany Fraser-zone (Western Australia). For all analysed samples, where the apatite trace element composition records an undisturbed primary mafic igneous lithology, the LuHf system retains primary igneous apatite crystallization ages, whereas the UPb system in the same grains often records isotopic disturbance or a cooling age. In few cases, the LuHf system has also been disturbed in response to recrystallization, however, such disturbance is readily detected with trace element data. Hence, this study demonstrates the potential of laser ablation apatite LuHf dating to obtain primary crystallization ages for otherwise difficult to date mafic rocks.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".