MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6995818651

Petrogenesis of 1.1 Ga carbonatite-kimberlite dykes and sills in the Schreiber greenstone belt, Ontario, Canada

2024· dissertation· en· W6995818651 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor) · 2024
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteCarbonatitePetrogenesisSillIgneous rockArcheanTrace elementMantle plumeBasaltMagma
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the first time, this study presents field relationships, petrographic observations, mineral chemistry, whole rock major and trace element and Sr-Nd and Pb radiogenic isotope geochemistry data for kimberlite, carbonate-rich kimberlite and carbonatite dykes and sills with an estimated age of 1.1 Ga from Ripple Bay, Superior Region, Ontario. An extensive data set was utilized to constrain their petrogenesis and tectonic setting, which has very important implications for the long-standing debate on the co-genetic relationship of kimberlites and carbonatites. Ripple Bay kimberlites, carbonatites, and carbonate-rich kimberlites occur in the same dykes and sills that intrude the Archean Schreiber-Hemlo greenstone Belt. These rocks are divided into three distinct groups based on their carbonate content: 1) kimberlite (carbonate < 20%), 2) carbonate-rich kimberlite (carbonate >20%) and 3) carbonatites (carbonate >80%). Each group also displays a distinctive geochemical affinity. Trace element diagrams of Ripple Bay rocks show distinct negative anomalies of Rb, K, Sr, and Zr-Hf in kimberlites and carbonate-rich kimberlites, whereas carbonatites display negative anomalies in Rb, K, Nb-Ta, Pb, Hf-Zr, and Ti. The REE patterns of Ripple Bay rocks exhibit subparallel trends, with carbonatites displaying the most enriched REE patterns and carbonate-rich kimberlites showing the least enrichment. Ripple Bay rocks have very similar Sr and Nd isotope ratios and major and trace element composition, suggesting a common magma source and petrogenesis. Their geochemical compositions suggest a source that comprises mixtures of MORB-like depleted mantle and an enriched plume source. Ripple Bay rocks do not represent primary magmas because they evolved through fractional crystallization and exhibit crustal contamination. Their geochemistry suggest that the carbonate-rich kimberlites and carbonatites are related by fractional crystallization, whereas their relationship to the kimberlites involves different degrees of partial melting. Their location, geochemical characteristics, field relationships with neighboring rocks, and mineralogy supports their interpretation as 1.1 Ga formations associated with the Mid-continent rift system.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 venueScholarship at UWindsor (University of Windsor)→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→