MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2935959836 · doi:10.5382/econgeo.4648

Trace Element Composition of Igneous and Hydrothermal Magnetite from Porphyry Deposits: Relationship to Deposit Subtypes and Magmatic Affinity

2019· article· en· W2935959836 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueEconomic Geology · 2019
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineComputer Science
ThématiqueGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Établissements canadiensAgnico Eagle (Canada)Geological Survey of CanadaNatural Resources CanadaUniversité Laval
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMagnetiteIgneous rockHydrothermal circulationMineral redox bufferGeologyGeochemistryFugacityMineralogyChemistry

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract The trace element composition of igneous and hydrothermal magnetite from 19 well-studied porphyry Cu ± Au ± Mo, Mo, and W-Mo deposits was measured by laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) and then classified by partial least squares-discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) to constrain the factors explaining the relationships between the chemical composition of magnetite and the magmatic affinity and porphyry deposit subtypes. Igneous magnetite can be discriminated by relatively high P, Ti, V, Mn, Zr, Nb, Hf, and Ta contents but low Mg, Si, Co, Ni, Ge, Sb, W, and Pb contents, in contrast to hydrothermal magnetite. Compositional differences between igneous and hydrothermal magnetite are mainly controlled by the temperature, oxygen fugacity, cocrystallized sulfides, and element solubility/mobility that significantly affect the partition coefficients between magnetite and melt/fluids. Binary diagrams based on Ti, V, and Cr contents are not enough to discriminate igneous and hydrothermal magnetite in porphyry deposits. Relatively high Si and Al contents discriminate porphyry W-Mo hydrothermal magnetite, probably reflecting the control by high-Si, highly differentiated, granitic intrusions for this deposit type. Relatively high Mg, Mn, Zr, Nb, Sn, and Hf but low Ti and V contents discriminate porphyry Au-Cu hydrothermal magnetite, most likely resulting from a combination of mafic to intermediate intrusion composition, high chlorine in fluids, relatively high oxygen fugacity, and low-temperature conditions. Igneous or hydrothermal magnetite from Cu-Mo, Cu-Au, and Cu-Mo-Au deposits cannot be discriminated from each other, probably due to similar intermediate to felsic intrusion composition, melt/fluid composition, and conditions such as temperature and oxygen fugacity for the formation of these deposits. The magmatic affinity of porphyritic intrusions exerts some control on the chemical composition of igneous and hydrothermal magnetite in porphyry systems. Igneous and hydrothermal magnetite related to alkaline magma is relatively rich in Mg, Mn, Co, Mo, Sn, and high field strength elements (HFSEs), perhaps due to high concentrations of chlorine and fluorine in magma and exsolved fluids, whereas those related to calc-alkaline magma are relatively rich in Ca but depleted in HFSEs, consistent with the high Ca but low HFSE magma composition. Igneous and hydrothermal magnetite related to high-K calc-alkaline magma is relatively rich in Al, Ti, Sc, and Ta, due to a higher temperature of formation or enrichment of these elements in melt/fluids. Partial least squares-discriminant analysis on hydrothermal magnetite compositions from porphyry Cu, iron oxide copper-gold (IOCG), Kiruna-type iron oxide-apatite (IOA), and skarn deposits around the world identify important discriminant elements for these deposit types. Magnetite from porphyry Cu deposits is characterized by relatively high Ti, V, Zn, and Al contents, whereas that from IOCG deposits can be discriminated from other types of magnetite by its relatively high V, Ni, Ti, and Al contents. IOA magnetite is discriminated by higher V, Ti, and Mg but lower Al contents, whereas skarn magnetite can be separated from magnetite from other deposit types by higher Mn, Mg, Ca, and Zn contents. Decreased Ti and V contents in hydrothermal magnetite from porphyry Cu and IOA, to IOCG, and to skarn deposits may be related to decreasing temperature and increasing oxygen fugacity. The relative depletion of Al in IOA magnetite is due to its low magnetite-silicate melt partition coefficient, immobility of Al in fluids, and earlier, higher-temperature magmatic or magmatic-hydrothermal formation of IOA deposits. The relative enrichment of Ni in IOCG magnetite reflects more mafic magmatic composition and less competition with sulfide, whereas elevated Mn, Mg, Ca, and Zn in skarn magnetite results from enrichment of these elements in fluids via more intensive fluid-carbonate rock interaction.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,016
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,451

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,007
Tête enseignante GPT0,190
Écart entre enseignants0,183 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle