Confocal Raman spectroscopic study of melt inclusions from peridotite xenoliths in economic and barren kimberlites from Kaapvaal Craton
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Melt inclusions trapped in minerals inside xenoliths from kimberlites can help to examine the composition of kimberlite melt and/or metasomatic processes in the subcratonic lithospheric mantle as well as shed more light on the role of these melts in diamond destruction. In this study, confocal Raman spectroscopy of secondary melt inclusions in olivine from xenoliths in five different Kaapvaal Craton kimberlites was used for testing any compositional differences between melt inclusions from economically productive (Bultfontein and Frank Smit) and uneconomic diamond barren (Matsoku, Thaba Putsoa, and Pipe 200) kimberlite pipes. The xenoliths represent a range of pressures (37–45 kbar) and temperatures (1000–1300°C). The 26 daughter minerals identified within melt inclusions include Ca–Mg (±Na, K, P, Cl)‐bearing carbonates, alkali (±Ca, Ba, Cl, F, H2O, CO2)‐bearing sulfates, phosphates, oxides, silicates, and a rare nitrate. The mineral assemblages in melt inclusions are similar in both economic and barren kimberlite pipes from the interior and the edge of the craton, indicating the similar composition of the entrapped melts in all studied samples. However, the petrographic study revealed different metasomatic processes recorded by xenoliths from barren and economic kimberlites. Metasomatism by a melt enriched in K, Ca, and H2O could be instrumental in diamond destruction and the low diamond grade of the three barren kimberlites from Lesotho. Our study revealed no effect of kimberlite melt composition on diamond preservation in the studied kimberlites: instead, diamond grade is most likely affected by diamond destruction in the mantle source prior to kimberlite emplacement with kimberlite ascent.
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 | 0.001 | 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".