Structural Controls on the Origin and Emplacement of Lithium-Bearing Pegmatites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploration and mining of lithium pegmatites has increased in recent years to meet the growing demand for critical metals, which are required for electric-powered transportation as well as sustainable energy production and storage. Pegmatite deposits produced approximately 60% of global lithium production in 2018, the vast majority of which was from spodumene pegmatites. However, there is lack of comprehensive models linking mineral system evolution and structural controls of lithium pegmatites. The majority of studies on lithium pegmatites have focused on chemical fractionation and assume that pegmatites have evolved from a parental granitic source, yet problems emerge when the connection between the granitic source and the pegmatite bodies is not obvious. This lack of connection has given rise to an alternative model of pegmatite formation, the anatectic model. In the anatectic model, granitic pegmatites form from granitic melts produced by partial melting of a suitable lithology, typically pelitic metasediments, without forming a large granitic body followed by fractional crystallization. Here, we first examine the formation of granitic melts related to anatexis, as well as how regional crustal structures influence chemical composition, crustal migration, and melt accumulation within the crust. We next examine the Wekusko Lake pegmatite field located in Manitoba, Canada, in terms of the probable melt source migration, the relationship between crustal-scale strain-zones and spatial pegmatite emplacement, and the chemical fractionation trend that records the formation of lithium-enriched pegmatites.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".