Mineralogical Characteristics and Genesis of Green Nephrite from the World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND In previous studies, due to the limited samples with specific origins and limited methods for measurement, the genesis of serpentinite-related green nephrite and its relationship with dolomite-related nephrite were unclear. OBJECTIVES To understand the genesis of serpentinite-related green nephrite. METHODS Green serpentinite-related nephrite deposits have been collected from Qinghai province in China, Russia, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan for systematic analysis. X-ray Diffraction (XRD), Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Spectrometry (ICP-MS), Electron Microprobe Analysis (EMPA), X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF) and Stable Isotope Mass Spectrometry were employed. RESULTS ① Serpentinite-related green nephrite is mainly composed of tremolite with minor quartz, talc, biotite, chromite, chlorite, and garnet. ② O-H isotopic values of samples (δD=-69.763‰--29.251‰, δ18O=4.7‰-13.4‰) indicate that the ore-forming fluids are mainly metamorphic water. ③ whole-rock major elements of Fe2+/(Mg+Fe2+)values range from 0.11 to 0.32. The contents of Cr range from 22.9 to 3400 μg/g, whereas Ni ranges from 700 to 1800 μg/g. All of these geochemical characteristics indicate the input of the mantle material in the formation of serpentinite-related nephrite. CONCLUSIONS Geochemical characteristics of serpentinite-related and dolomite-related nephrite are different, which are related to the geological environment. For example, the composition of dolomite-related nephrite is controlled by the granite and dolomite marble, whereas the composition of serpentinite-related green nephrite is related to the mantle material and metamorphic fluids.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".