MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mineralogy and mineral chemistry of the metamorphosed and precious metal-bearing Ming deposit, Canada

2015· article· en· W2097710736 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Stefanie M. Brueckner, Stephen J. Piercey, Jean-Luc Pilote, Graham D. Layne, Paul Sylvester

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersResearch and Development Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador
KeywordsSphaleritePyriteGalenaGeologyArsenopyriteGeochemistryChalcopyritePyrrhotiteVolcanogenic massive sulfide ore depositSericiteTetrahedriteMineralogyMineralChalcociteChemistryQuartzCopper

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Ming deposit in the northwestern Canadian Appalachians is a metamorphosed, bimodal-mafic, precious-metal (Au, Ag)-bearing and Cu-rich volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposit consisting of several, spatially proximal lenses in a sericite- to chlorite-altered rhyodacitic footwall. The various lenses (1807 Zone, 1806 Zone, Ming South Up Plunge, Ming South Down Plunge, and the Lower Footwall Zone) have variations in Cu, Au, Ag, and Zn grades that reflect varying physico-chemical conditions of ore formation. This study describes the complex ore mineralogy of the orebodies and constrains the genesis of the deposit using field methods, mineralogy, whole rock sulfide geochemistry, and micro-analytical methods. The orebodies are predominantly pyrite, chalcopyrite, with lesser sphalerite, pyrrhotite, and trace galena and arsenopyrite, with the exception of the Lower Footwall Zone, which consists of a high temperature (> 320 °C) chalcopyrite–pyrrhotite–pyrite ± cubanite assemblage. The other orebodies (1806, 1807, Ming South Up Plunge and Down Plunge) contain trace amounts of tellurides (hessite, altaite, tsumoite, unnamed bismuthtelluride), sulfosalts (Ag-poor and Ag-rich tennantite–tetrahedrite, meneghinite, AgSb phases, stannite), and precious metal phases (electrum, AgHg ± Au alloys). The 1807 Zone is enriched in Te, Bi, and Se, whereas the 1806 Zone is telluride-free and contains As, Sb, Hg, Au, and Ag. Mineral chemistry of sphalerite shows strong variations in Fe content (1.12–11.04 wt.%). Intermediate Fe (4.33–6.33 wt.% Fe) and Fe-rich (7.327–11.04 wt.% Fe) sphalerite are common in all orebodies, whereas Fe-poor sphalerite (1.12–3.57 wt.% Fe) occurs exclusively in the 1807 and 1806 zones. Tennantite-tetrahedrite is typically Ag-poor (0.25–2.19 wt.%) in the 1807 Zone, but is significantly enriched in Ag (up to 29.3 wt.%) in the 1806 Zone. Galena in the 1807 Zone and Ming South orebodies is commonly myrmekitically intergrown with tellurides and has high concentrations of Te, Bi, Se, and Ag. In contrast, galena in the 1806 Zone is less enriched in Te, Bi, and Se, but high in Ag. Variations in mineralogy, epithermal elements (As, Bi, Hg, Sb, Se, Sn, Te) and precious metal (Ag, Au) content, and mineral chemistry between the different orebodies indicate that they were formed from predominantly reduced, acidic hydrothermal fluids with varying ƒTe2/ƒS2, ƒSe2/ƒS2, and mBi/mSb ratios as temperatures steadily decreased from > 300 °C to < 260 °C during ore formation. In the 1807 and Ming South orebodies, late-stage deposition of Te-, Bi-, Se-, Ag-rich galena and tellurides occurred prior to precipitation of Ag-poor tennantite-tetrahedrite, whereas in the 1806 Zone hydrothermal fluids low in ƒTe2/ƒS2, ƒSe2/ƒS2, and mBi/mSb favored the precipitation of Te-, Bi-, Se-poor galena and Ag-rich tennantite-tetrahedrite. A magmatic source for epithermal elements and precious metals is suggested and was part of the depositional history of the Ming deposit.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.579

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.173 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207