Variations in the nature of the platinum-group minerals in a cross-section through the Merensky Reef at Impala Platinum: implications for the mode of formation of the reef. Canadian Mineralogist 42
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study of the abundance, size, distribution and composition of platinum-group minerals in samples from a section of the Merensky Reef at Impala Platinum, on the farm Reinkoyalskraal, in the western Bushveld Complex, South Africa, has shown that melanorite, leuconorite and anorthosite contain a PGM assemblage that consists almost exclusively of Pt and Pd bismuthotellurides, predominantly moncheite and merenskyite. In the chromite-rich lithologies, this assemblage of Pt–Pd–Bi telluride PGM is joined by a Pt–Pd–Rh sulfide PGM assemblage of cooperite, braggite and an unnamed Cu–Pt–Rh sulfide, with laurite and rare Sn-bearing PGM. This additional assemblage tends to be Pd-poor. The PGM are rarely enclosed by chromite. All the PGM are predominantly associated with base-metal sulfides, either as euhedral PGM or laths forming an exsolution texture within the base-metal sulfides. Rhodium, present as the unnamed Cu–Pt–Rh sulfide, is associated with pyrrhotite and pentlandite. Throughout this section of the reef, the PGM are commonly located at the edge of base-metal sulfides adjacent to serpentine, chlorite and amphibole that form on the edges of silicate grains. In the chromite-poor samples, Pt–Pd–Bi tellurides and their associated base-metal sulfides are located commonly within silicates, including plagioclase and quartz. The chromite-bearing rocks in this section of the Merensky Reef are enriched in Os, Ir, Ru, Rh and Pt. We test three models for the formation of the PGM: coprecipitation of PGM and chromite, crystallization of PGM from a sulfide liquid, and redistribution of PGE and base metals by hydrous intercumulus fluid. The strong association of PGM with base-metal sulfides suggests that the PGE were
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".