Geochemistry and Petrology of a Serpentinized Ultramafic Unit in East Dover, Vermont
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The texture and geochemistry of ultramafic rocks exposed at the Earth's surface can be used to distinguish their origin as either magmatic, replacive or tectonic. Tectonite ultramafics can be indisputably linked to ophiolite sequences and are interpreted as uplifted sections of the upper mantle, whereas cumulate and replacive ultramafics are interpreted as either part of an ophiolite sequence or as the lower "strata" of a layered intrusion (Kubo, 2002). Preliminary investigation of the petrology and geochemistry of the East Dover ultramafic unit in south central Vermont indicates that the serpentinized dunitic body formed as residual mantle emplaced tectonically, rather than ultramafic cumulate formed by a magmatic intrusion, or replacive dunite formed by magma infiltration. The East Dover ultramafic body consists of serpentine surrounding islands of olivine, with accessory chrome spinel, minor pyroxene and secondary calcite. Plots of Al2O3 vs. TiO2 for the East Dover ultramafic body classify it within the dunite field. Because chrome spinels from throughout the unit contain Cr# [(Cr/(Cr+Al)] >0.60, the rock can be classified according to Dick et. al. (1984), as a Type III Alpine-Type peridotite. A mantle origin is widely accepted for Type III Alpine-Type peridotites (Dick et. al., 1984). Additional support for the interpretation of the East Dover ultramafic unit as a fragment of uplifted residual mantle is provided by compositional data from olivine and chrome spinel, using Ni (~2200-2700 ppm) vs forsterite (Fo) content (~88-96%) in olivine grains (Leblanc et. al., 1984), and Cr-Al-Fe+3 in chrome spinels (Barnes et. al., 2001). The interpretation of the East Dover ultramafic unit as the mantle tectonite section of an ophiolite sequence suggests that it can be correlated with the ophiolites and fragments thereof in northern Vermont, Quebec and Newfoundland.
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".