MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2075218209 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.43.5.1687

PLATINUM-GROUP MINERALS FROM FIVE PLACER DEPOSITS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA, CANADA

2005· article· en· W2075218209 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
A.Yu. Barkov, Michael E. Fleet, Graham T. Nixon, V M Levson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British ColumbiaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacer miningPlatinum groupGeologyPlacer depositGeochemistryGroup (periodic table)PlatinumMineralogyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platinum-group minerals (PGM) from a selected suite of gold- and platinum-group-element (PGE) placer deposits in British Columbia have been analyzed using the electron-microprobe (EMP). The PGM placer grains ( n = 70, 0.1–1.5 mm in size) principally comprise various Pt–Fe–(Cu) alloys: “Pt 3 Fe”-type alloys [Fe-rich platinum (formerly, ferroan platinum: Bayliss et al. 2005) or isoferroplatinum], Fe-rich Pt with an atomic ∑PGE:(Fe + Cu + Ni) ratio of 3.6–5.6, “(Pt,Ir) 2 Fe”-type alloy, members of the tulameenite–tetraferroplatinum solid-solution series extending from Pt 2 Fe(Cu,Ni) toward PGE 1+ x (Fe,Cu,Ni) 1− x , less common Ir-dominant Ir–Os–(Ru–Pt) alloys, subordinate Os-dominant alloys, and minor Ru-rich alloys and rutheniridosmine, the latter with an atomic Ir:Os:Ru proportion close to 1:1:1. Trace amounts of PGE sulfides and sulfarsenides: cooperite PtS, Ni-rich cuproiridsite (Cu,Ni,Fe)(Ir,Rh,Pt) 2 S 4 , unusual sperrylite-type [(Pt,Rh,Fe)(As,S) 2− x ] and platarsite-type [PtAs 1− x S 1+ x , or unnamed Pt(S,As) 2− x ] phases, and unnamed (Ir,Rh,Pt)S (?) crystallized at a late stage in low-S environments. Some PGM grains contain micro-inclusions of diopside, augite, ferro-edenite, a potassian sodic-calcic amphibole (richterite?), talc, clinochlore and euhedral quartz. High values of mg# [100Mg/(Mg + Fe)] of the ferromagnesian minerals in these inclusions suggest highly magnesian source-rocks. Textural and compositional data, in particular the zoned intergrowths of Pt–Fe–(Cu) alloy grains, which broadly resemble the zoned Pt–Pd–Cu stannides from the Noril’sk complex, indicate the following sequence of crystallization: (Pt,Ir,Rh) 3 Fe → (Pt,Ir,Rh) 1+ x (Fe,Cu) 1− x or Pt 2 Fe(Cu,Ni). The zoned Pt–Fe–Cu alloys likely formed by fractional crystallization of primary solid-solutions under closed-system conditions as a result of increase in the activity of Cu in the residual liquid after an early-stage (magmatic) crystallization of the Cu-poor core. The Cu-rich Pt–Fe alloys formed around these core zones and at their peripheries during a significant drop in temperature at a late stage of crystallization of the composite alloy grains. The compositions of micro-inclusions and exsolution lamellae of Os- and Ir-dominant alloys in Pt–Fe alloys imply uniform temperatures of equilibration within the range 750–800°C. The compositions of Cu-rich Pt–Fe alloys, PGE sulfides and sulfarsenides, and exsolution lamellae of Os- and Ir-dominant alloys, observed in intimate association with Pt–Fe alloys, are likely related to the crystallization of the coexisting Pt–Fe alloys. Narrow zones of Pt–Fe alloys richer in Pt and poor in Fe, observed at the boundary of placer Pt–Fe alloy grains, provide evidence for a removal of Fe and corresponding addition of Pt as a result of interaction with a low-temperature fluid. The terrane affinities, compositions and associations of the placer PGM examined appear consistent with two types of potential source-rocks, associated with Alaskan-type intrusions and the Atlin ophiolite complex. The preservation of faceted morphologies on many of the placer PGM grains implies a relatively short distance of transport from their source.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.000

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 head0.162
Teacher spread0.154 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations36
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207