Eclogite with biotite porphyroblasts—Which conditions are responsible for their formation? An example from the northern Fleur‐de‐Lys Supergroup, Newfoundland, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An eclogite from the Early Palaeozoic Fleur‐de‐Lys Supergroup in Newfoundland was studied because of its biotite porphyroblasts, which very rarely occur in this rock type. Thermodynamic modelling suggests that eclogitic biotite in common metabasite (former basalt–gabbro) is limited to (1) bulk‐rock compositions, which are relatively rich in Fe2+ and K and poor in Fe3+, and (2) the low‐pressure range of the eclogite facies. The latter reason is supported by the determination of the pressure–temperature (P–T) path of the Newfoundland eclogite. Chemical zonation of garnet, presence of phengite with Si contents of ~3.4 per formula unit, Zr contents in rutile and petrographic observations resulted in a P–T trajectory starting at medium‐pressure conditions. Nearly isothermal burial led to a peak pressure of 18–19 kbar at ~575°C, followed by exhumation and slight heating. Deformation occurred at or close to the peak pressure. Subsequent introduction of hydrous fluids caused the formation of porphyroblasts of biotite and Ca–amphibole in the pressure range of 12–17 kbar at peak temperatures of 625–640°C. Retrogression led to very fine‐grained symplectites around omphacite and phengite and marginal replacement of biotite porphyroblasts by plagioclase and titanite. Geodynamic scenarios invoking either a flat subduction of oceanic crust followed by continent–continent collision or intracontinental subduction along a transpressional fault system might best explain the formation of eclogite with biotite porphyroblasts in general. For the Newfoundland eclogite, the latter scenario is preferred.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".