Exhalative Mineralization in Devonian Reef Complexes of theCanning Basin, Western Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lenticular stromatolite-barite-sulfide mounds, interpreted as sedimentary exhalative deposits, are exposed at several localities in Devonian reef complexes of the Canning basin, Western Australia. These mounds, hundreds of meters long and tens of meters thick, occur along contacts between basinal shales (Gogo Formation) and marginal-slope limestones (Sadler Limestone) and adjacent to synsedimentary faults cutting the Gogo Formation. The mounds are limestone buildups, composed of stromatolites intergrown with barite and cut by iron sulfide veins. The iron sulfides (marcasite and pyrite) are weathered to gossans at the surface. They fill fissures that probably formed as a result of contemporary seismic activity and the early compaction of underlying and adjoining shales. The stromatolite-barite-sulfide deposits also occur as allochthonous clasts in penecontemporaneous debris-flow deposits. Postdepositional compaction of basinal shales in the Gogo Formation commonly amounted to about 75 percent. This resulted in the expulsion of large volumes of fluids along permeable interbeds, shale-limestone contacts, and synsedimentary faults, reaching the sea floor as cool-fluid seepages. The expelled fluids carried dissolved carbonate, barium, iron, and reduced sulfur. They probably nourished chemosynthetic bacteria that mediated the deposition of stromatolites, barite, and iron sulfides, resulting in growth of the stromatolite-barite-sulfide buildups. There is no known economic mineralization in the exhalative buildups, but some drill holes encountered minor uneconomic veins of epigenetic Zn-Pb mineralization, filling narrow fissures that postdate the exhalative deposits. Economic epigenetic Zn-Pb deposits that have been mined elsewhere in the same general area of the Canning basin were formed during the early Carboniferous or latest Devonian, many millions of years after the exhalative deposits. Both exhalative and epigenetic phases of mineralization are thought to have been sourced through the compaction-driven dewatering of shales. The exhalative deposits are interpreted to have formed over seepages of cool fluids having salinities close to that of seawater, whereas the epigenetic deposits formed from much hotter fluids, probably brines, expelled during subsequent shale compaction.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".