Iron oxide - copper - gold-type and related deposits in the Manitou Lake area, eastern Grenville Province, Quebec: variations in setting, composition, and style
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Manitou Lake area (Kwyjibo and Lac Marmont sectors), located in Quebec's eastern Grenville Province, contains magnetite-rich deposits with variable morphological, mineralogical, and chemical characteristics. Most Kwyjibo sector deposits are rich in Cu, rare-earth elements (REE), Y, P, F, and Ag and are anomalous in Th, U, Mo, W, Zr, and Au, and Lac Marmont sector deposits are commonly poor in these elements. Deposits occur in or are closely associated with 11751168 Ma leucogranite. They contain combinations of magnetite, clinopyroxene, bluegreen hornblende, titanite, apatite, fluorite, quartz, biotite, andradite, epidote, albite, hematite, sulfides (chalcopyrite, pyrite, pyrrhotite, molybdenite, sphalerite), ilmenite, allanite, and other REE-bearing minerals. Veins and breccias are common. Most of the magnetite mineralization was preceded by potassic metasomatism (microcline) and was followed by most of the sulfides and radioactive minerals. Nearby sulfide-dominant deposits may be related. The deposits were formed by metasomatic replacement and fracture filling from hydrothermal fluids of variable composition, which were probably channeled in major, active faults. Oxygen-isotope data from magnetite-rich rocks suggest that fluids were predominantly magmatic and (or) metamorphic and that, locally, mixing with cooler meteoric water may have facilitated precipitation of sulfides and rare-metal minerals. Titanites in mineralized rock have been dated at 972 ± 5 Ma, but most magnetite may be older. Mineralization was syn- to post-tectonic and occurred in an orogenic to orogenic-collapse setting. The CuREEY-rich deposits are similar to iron oxide copper gold (IOCG) Olympic Dam type deposits, and copper- and rare-metals-poor occurrences resemble magnetite ± apatite Kiruna-type deposits.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".