Alkali/Alumina Molar Ratio Trends in Altered Granitoid Rocks Hosting Porphyry and Related Deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research Article| January 01, 2010 Alkali/Alumina Molar Ratio Trends in Altered Granitoid Rocks Hosting Porphyry and Related Deposits J.F. Davies; J.F. Davies † †Corresponding Author: E-mail: rmehes@laurentian.ca Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar R.E. Whitehead R.E. Whitehead 1Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Ramsey Lake Road, Sudbury, Ontario, P3E 2C6 Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Exploration and Mining Geology (2010) 19 (1-2): 13–22. https://doi.org/10.2113/gsemg.19.1-2.13 Article history received: 10 Nov 2009 accepted: 30 Nov 2009 first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation J.F. Davies, R.E. Whitehead; Alkali/Alumina Molar Ratio Trends in Altered Granitoid Rocks Hosting Porphyry and Related Deposits. Exploration and Mining Geology 2010;; 19 (1-2): 13–22. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/gsemg.19.1-2.13 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentBy SocietyExploration and Mining Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract Alkali/alumina and MgO/alumina molar ratio plots graphically portray both chemical and mineralogical changes accompanying potassic, phyllic, argillic, chloritic, and alunitic alteration of quartz monzonites and granodiorites hosting porphyry (as well as lode and greisen) ore deposits. The molar ratio plots can be used to identify different types of alteration. In most cases, the identification based on molar ratios coincides with petrographic data. In those instances where the molar ratio and petrographic identifications do not agree, the mineralogy might need to be re-examined. Hydrothermal alteration studies using trace elements could benefit from the application of complementary alkali/alumina molar ratio plots. You do not have access to this content, please speak to your institutional administrator if you feel you should have access.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".