Osmium Isotope Heterogeneity of the Upper Mantle: Evidence From the Bay of Islands Ophiolite Complex, Newfoundland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Understanding and determining the composition and evolution of the upper mantle is valuable to unravel Earth's evolutionary geodynamics. The compositions of oceanic basalts are inevitably biased by the preferential melting of fusible mantle components and the pooling of melts from multiple sources. Here we present whole rock and mineral chemistry as well as Re‐Os isotopic systematics of the Table Mountain ophiolitic mantle massif from the Bay of Islands ophiolite complex, complemented by thermodynamic models of melt extraction. The Table Mountain lherzolites were formed by moderate degrees (5%–15%) of shallow polybaric melting. We divide the harzburgites into two types. Type I harzburgites represent residues of high‐pressure melting, and Type II harzburgites appear to have been further modified by second‐stage flux melting above a subduction zone induced by slab sediment‐derived aqueous fluids. The Table Mountain peridotites display highly variable “initial” 187Os/188Os485 Ma isotope compositions, including 0.1252–0.1253 for the Type I harzburgites, 0.1217–0.1236 and 0.1192–0.1198 for both lherzolites and Type II harzburgites. These Os isotopic variations cannot be generated by different degrees of partial melting of a homogenous fertile mantle immediately prior to obduction, and hence must have been inherited from ancient melting events. The Table Mountain lherzolites with inherited ancient melting signals are of particular significance because they demonstrate that the record of earlier melting events is not limited to ultra‐refractory harzburgites but is also present even in relatively fertile lherzolites. Our observations underscore the ubiquity of ancient melting signatures in the entire compositional spectrum of the depleted upper mantle.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".