MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392759442 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-13231

Garnet, zircon and rutile U-Pb systematics of eclogite xenoliths from the Navajo Volcanic Field (USA)

2024· preprint· en· W4392759442 on OpenAlexaff
Johannes Pohlner, Siqi Hao, Richard Albert, Axel Gerdes, Daniel J. Schulze, Herwart Helmstaedt, Sonja Aulbach

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEclogiteZirconGeologyNavajoGeochemistryXenolithVolcanoRutileSystematicsSeismologyPaleontologyMantle (geology)TectonicsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intrusions of the Navajo Volcanic Field (NVF) contain eclogite xenoliths that record processes related to the subduction of the Farallon plate beneath the Colorado Plateau. Previous geochronological work sparked controversies about their origin, especially whether they are derived from oceanic crust of the Farallon plate, or from older continental lithosphere, based on occasional Proterozoic zircon U-Pb ages. Moreover, the mechanisms and timescales of the recorded high-pressure processes, including several stages of fluid metasomatism, are largely unknown. We study the U-Pb systematics of garnet, zircon and rutile by LA-ICP-MS in order to achieve a refined petrochronologic interpretation of the NVF eclogites.The eclogite xenoliths are hosted by serpentinized ultramafic microbreccia (SUM) which intruded the Colorado Plateau at ~30 Ma as a consequence of extensive hydration of the lithospheric mantle by Farallon slab-derived fluids. In contrast to kimberlite-borne eclogite xenoliths, which often contain garnet and omphacite only, those of the NVF additionally contain ubiquitous rutile, and often pyrite, phengite, zoisite pseudomorphs after lawsonite (with rare lawsonite relics), accessory monazite, and rare coesite. Based on this assemblage, peak P-T conditions around 4 GPa and 600°C are estimated. Subsequent rapid uplift in the sub-solidus SUM is not thought to have caused significant further heating. Except for a few instances where a mid-ocean ridge basalt-like bulk chemical composition is essentially preserved, the xenoliths are strongly overprinted by several metasomatic events in the eclogite facies. Most notably, this involved interaction with a Na-Si-S-rich fluid, probably of crustal origin, and a later (just prior to exhumation) serpentinite-derived fluid.All our U-Pb rutile data as well as published U-Pb monazite data (~29 Ma) agree with the ~30 Ma SUM formation age. The majority of the U-Pb zircon analyses predate the rutile data by not more than several Myr, with a minority of older ages forming a continuum to the late Cretaceous. Unlike some earlier studies, we did not obtain any Proterozoic U-Pb zircon ages. The garnet U-Pb dates, which are mostly from pre-metasomatic zones, partly agree with the zircon dates within uncertainty, but sometimes predate the zircon dates from the same sample by up to several tens of Myr.Despite moderate peak metamorphic temperatures (~600°C), rutile remained an open system for Pb until exhumation. Garnet and zircon are resistant to Pb volume diffusion at these temperatures, however, the zircon ages appear to be largely reset during fluid metasomatism, as also indicated by often high common Pb contents. Due to the absence of preserved igneous zircon ages, the protolith origin remains uncertain. Garnet, which grew mostly before metasomatism, seems to provide robust ages of initial eclogitization, which may have been diachronous in our sample suite. Geochronological evidence implies that several tens of Myr passed between initial eclogitization and exhumation of the xenoliths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.188 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→