MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026342410 · doi:10.1080/00288306.2004.9515049

U‐Pb geochronology and geochemistry of molybdenum‐bearing granodiorite porphyry at Copperstain Creek, west Nelson, New Zealand

2004· article· en· W2026342410 on OpenAlexaff
Robert L. Brathwaite, Sandra L. Kamo, Kevin Faure

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeochronologyGeologyGeochemistryMolybdenumIsotope geochemistryIsotope

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A molybdenite‐mineralised granodiorite porphyry at Copperstain Creek has a U‐Pb zircon age of 133.5 ± 0.2 Ma. This is older than the Early Cretaceous (126–105 Ma) Separation Point Suite, with which other molybdenum‐bearing granodiorite porphyries in west Nelson have been correlated on the basis of similar compositions and K‐Ar ages. The Copperstain Creek granodiorite differs compositionally from the high Na and Sr/Y rocks of the Separation Point Suite in having medium Na and low Sr/Y. Oxygen isotope δ 18 O magma values of ≤10‰ for the Copperstain Creek granodiorite and granites from the Separation Point Suite indicate that both are I‐type granites. However, the Copperstain Creek granodiorite porphyry has a minimum δ 18 O magma value of 9.4‰, which indicates a magma with a crustal component, whereas the Separation Point Suite granites have values (5.4–7.9‰) which are very primitive (“mantle‐like”). These new U‐Pb age and oxygen isotope data indicate that the Copperstain Creek granodiorite is not related to the Separation Point Suite granitoids.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.518
Threshold uncertainty score0.970

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.184 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Zealand Journal of Geology and GeophysicsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207