Geochemical exploration for gold in Jamaica: a comparison of stream sediment and soil surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geology of Jamaica is reviewed with reference to gold. Two geochemical surveys, one employing stream sediments for mineral exploration in selected regions of Jamaica considered a priori to have greater mineral potential, and the other an island-wide low-density soil survey to meet agro-environmental objectives, were undertaken in 1986 and 1988, respectively. The paper presents an interpretation of the previously unpublished soil data for gold, and undertakes a comparison of the two surveys in terms of their effectiveness for gold exploration. The stream sediment survey (1 site per 1 km 2 ) led to the discovery of three new gold occurrences, one of which became a producing mine in 2001, and the recognition of two previously known auriferous districts. The low-density soil survey (1 site per 64 km 2 ) identified the host rocks of three of these auriferous districts as having gold potential, including those of the producing mine, demonstrating its value as a broad-scale regional mineral reconnaissance tool. Geochemical studies of gold in Jamaica are complicated by the presence of transported palaeo-anomalies, related to Miocene ash-falls, in terra rossa soils in karst terrain. The Fe/Na ratio is an index of soil maturity and increases over two-and-a-half orders of magnitude with increasing soil age and mature. The plotting of Au versus the Fe/Na ratio in soils offers a simple procedure for identifying samples most likely to be related to gold occurrences in bedrock, i.e. high Au and low Fe/Na ratio. It is concluded that in the specific instance of Jamaica's high relief terrain and the apparent limitation of gold occurrences to the Cretaceous Inliers and Eocene Wagwater Trough underlying those high relief areas, stream sediment sampling is the most effective mineral exploration tool.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".