MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1502604500 · doi:10.3133/sir20105070c

Volcanogenic massive sulfide occurrence model

2012· article· en· W1502604500 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific investigations report · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeafloor spreadingGeologyVolcanogenic massive sulfide ore depositGeochemistrySulfideVolcanoHydrothermal circulationPyritePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits, also known as volcanic-hosted massive sulfide, volcanic-associated massive sulfide, or seafloor massive sulfide deposits, are important sources of copper, zinc, lead, gold, and silver (Cu, Zn, Pb, Au, and Ag). These deposits form at or near the seafloor where circulating hydrothermal fluids driven by magmatic heat are quenched through mixing with bottom waters or porewaters in near-seafloor lithologies. Massive sulfide lenses vary widely in shape and size and may be podlike or sheetlike. They are generally stratiform and may occur as multiple lenses. Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits range in size from small pods of less than a ton (which are commonly scattered through prospective terrains) to supergiant accumulations like Rio Tinto (Spain), 1.5 billion metric tons; Kholodrina (Russia), 300 million metric tons; Windy Craggy (Canada), 300 million metric tons; Brunswick No. 12 (Canada), 230 million metric tons; and Ducktown (United States), 163 million metric tons. Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits range in age from 3.55 billion years to zero-age deposits that are actively forming in extensional settings on the seafloor, especially mid-ocean ridges, island arcs, and back-arc spreading basins. The widespread recognition of modern seafloor Volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits and associated hydrothermal vent fluids and vent fauna has been one of the most astonishing discoveries in the last 50 years, and seafloor exploration and scientific studies have contributed much to our understanding of ore-forming processes and the tectonic framework for volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits in the marine environment. Massive ore in volcanogenic massive sulfide deposits consists of greater than 40 percent sulfides, usually pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and galena; non-sulfide gangue typically consists of quartz, barite, anhydrite, iron oxides, chlorite, sericite, talc, and their metamorphosed equivalents. Ore composition may be Pb-Zn-, Cu-Zn-, or Pb-Cu-Zn-dominated, and some deposits are zoned vertically and laterally. Many deposits have stringer or feeder zones beneath the massive zone that consist of crosscutting veins and veinlets of sulfides in a matrix of pervasively altered host rock and gangue. Alteration zonation in the host rocks surrounding the deposits are usually well-developed and include advanced argillic (kaolinite, alunite), argillic (illite, sericite), sericitic (sericite, quartz), chloritic (chlorite, quartz), and propylitic (carbonate, epidote, chlorite) types. An unusual feature of VMS deposits is the common association of stratiform "exhalative" deposits precipitated from hydrothermal fluids emanating into bottom waters. These deposits may extend well beyond the margins of massive sulfide and are typically composed of silica, iron, and manganese oxides, carbonates, sulfates, sulfides, and tourmaline.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.559

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.218 · 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