Igneous Rock Associations 14. The Volcanic Setting of VMS and SMS Deposits: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposits and seafloor massive sulphide (SMS) deposits have a spatial and genetic connection with contemporaneous volcanism. The control exerted by the volcanic succession (e.g. rock type, architecture and facies) on the nature and style of the ore and alteration (e.g. subsea-floor replacement vs. exhalative, or discordant vs. conformable) is significant, making it imperative to understand the local volcanology in developing better genetic and exploration models. Three VMS deposit groupings collectively represent a high proportion of cases: (1) deposits associated with complexes of submarine felsic domes, cryptodomes, lobe-hyaloclastite flows and/or blocky lavas, and their reworked equivalents; (2) deposits associated with thick piles of pumiceous felsic pyroclastic rocks, suggesting a caldera context; and (3) deposits associated with mafic volcanic footwalls and/or with sedimentary hosts, including significant deposits such as Windy Craggy (~300 Mt) in British Columbia. With regard to number (2) above, demonstrating the presence of a caldera in ancient successions can be difficult because silicic calderas tend to be large and exceed the limits of deposit-scale investigations. Furthermore, there is no consensus regarding what a large submarine caldera should look like, i.e., no accepted facies model exists showing the distribution of rock types. But without thick piles of pumiceous felsic pyroclastic deposits, arguing for a large submarine caldera is a challenge.SOMMAIRELes gisements de sulfures massifs volcanogènes (SMV) et leurs équivalents actuels au fonds des mers ont une connexion spatiale et génétique avec le volcanisme. La succession volcanique – composition, architecture, faciès – exerce un contrôle important sur la nature et le style de minéralisation et d’altération hydrothermale (p. ex. minéralisation mise en place par remplacement sous le fond marin vs. exhalative; altération discordante ou plus concordante). Il est donc impératif de connaître la volcanologie des roches encaissantes pour développer de meilleurs modèles génétiques et d’exploration. Trois groupes de gisements couvrant collectivement une grande proportion des cas sont discutés ici. Premièrement, plusieurs gisements sont associés à des complexes de dômes felsiques sous-marins, des cryptodômes, des coulées de type lobes-hyaloclastite et/ou des laves en blocs, ou leur équivalents resédimentés. Deuxièmement, certains gisements sont associés à d’épaisses séquences de roches pyroclastiques felsiques ponceuses, suggérant un contexte de caldeira. Troisièmement, plusieurs gisements sont associés avec des roches volcaniques mafiques et/ou avec des roches sédimentaires, par exemple l’important dépôt de Windy Craggy (~300 Mt) en Colombie-Britannique. Concernant les contextes de type 2, la démonstration d’une caldeira peut être difficile dans les successions anciennes, car les caldeiras felsiques sont de grandes dimensions, excédant les limites des études à l’échelle du gîte. De plus, il n’existe pas de consensus sur un modèle de faciès pour une grande caldeira sous-marine. Mais sans la présence d’épais empilements de roches pyroclastiques felsiques ponceuses, il est difficile d’argumenter en faveur d’une caldeira sous-marine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".