MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088115646 · doi:10.2113/gscanmin.44.5.1045

ARSENOPYRITE MELTING DURING METAMORPHISM OF SULFIDE ORE DEPOSITS

2006· article· en· W2088115646 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Andrew G. Tomkins, Carol D. Frost, David R.M. Pattison

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArsenopyriteMetamorphismGeologyGeochemistrySulfideMineralogyMetallurgyMaterials scienceChalcopyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arsenopyrite is present as a minor phase in many different types of ore deposits. Here we investigate a number of ore deposits metamorphosed to mid-amphibolite facies and above to show that in some environments, arsenopyrite is likely to melt during metamorphism, but in others it will persist until it is converted to lollingite + pyrrhotite. The fate of arsenopyrite is governed by the sulfur fugacity imposed by the surrounding mineralogy during metamorphism. At the Hemlo gold deposit, Canada, which contains a range of disseminated sulfi des, the breakdown of barite promoted conditions of high f(S2) and melting of arsenopyrite during prograde metamorphism. On the other hand, at several massive sulfi de deposits including Osborne Lake, Montauban and Geco in Canada, high f(S2) conditions were instead generated through pyrite breakdown on the pyrite–pyrrhotite buffer, also causing arsenopyrite to melt in favorable parts of the deposits. In contrast, metamorphic processes that inhibit high f(S2) through consumption of sulfur promote the solid-state conversion of arsenopyrite to lollingite and pyrrhotite rather than melting. In most mineral deposits, the strongest infl uence on sulfur fugacity is the pyrite-to-pyrrhotite reaction, which buffers f(S2) to increasingly elevated values as temperature increases. Once pyrite is consumed, however, f(S2) no longer is maintained at elevated values. If rocks hosting arsenopyrite are able to conserve pyrite to middle-amphibolite-facies conditions (beyond 491°C at 1 bar, or ~560°C at 5 kbar), arsenopyrite melting will occur. If not, arsenopyrite melting is unlikely, though still possible. Of the mechanisms that promote pyrite decomposition at metamorphic conditions below arsenopyrite melting, sequestration of sulfur by iron silicates or oxides (or both) to form pyrrhotite may be the most effective in many types of deposit. At the Calumet deposit and in some parts of the Geco deposit, this process was found to be effective in converting pyrite to pyrrhotite in magnetite-rich rocks. Pyrite consumption and low-f(S2) conditions are also promoted to a small extent by incorporation of sulfur in hydrothermal fl uids, such as an introduced fl uid or those generated by dehydration reactions, this effect becoming more signifi cant as temperature rises. Deposits where arsenopyrite is likely to melt during metamorphism include pyrite-rich massive sulfi de deposits as well as disseminated deposits lacking abundant iron silicates and oxides. The As-rich melts that result are highly effective in incorporating and mobilizing other metals, particularly gold and silver, as demonstrated at the Challenger deposit (Australia) and at Hemlo, Ontario.

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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.160 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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