The formation of lithium-rich pegmatites through multi-stage melting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Lithium-cesium-tantalum–type pegmatites (the primary source of lithium) crystallize from highly evolved, volatile felsic melts that incorporated crustal material in their source. Pegmatites are classically thought to form either from extreme fractionation of a parental granite body or via low-degree partial melting of a metamorphic rock (anatectic origin). However, the processes that lead to the formation of economic lithium pegmatite deposits remain enigmatic, because precipitation of lithium ore minerals requires melt lithium concentrations in excess of 5000 ppm—~500 times upper crustal abundances. We use petrological modeling to quantify lithium enrichment in an anatectic-origin scenario and show that it is primarily driven by the relative stability of residual biotite and muscovite at medium to high pressures (~8 kbar), and biotite and cordierite at low pressures (~3 kbar). We show anatexis of an average lithium-enriched metasedimentary source cannot sufficiently elevate the lithium content of the ensuing melt to form economic deposits; however, if this first-generation melt—now crystallized as granitic crust—is re-melted, the second-generation melt will be sufficiently concentrated in lithium to crystallize lithium ore minerals. We propose a petrogenetic model for anatectic-origin lithium pegmatites, in which a region experiences at least two stages of partial melting, ultimately generating lithium-rich melts without invoking extensive fractional crystallization. This mechanism can both account for the occurrence of unzoned lithium pegmatites and explain why economic pegmatites in many terranes are younger than their inferred source granites.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".