Topographic features of the sub-Athabasca Group unconformity surface in the southeastern Athabasca Basin and their relationship to uranium ore deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Topographic features of the sub-Athabasca unconformity surface, such as paleovalleys, topographic highs, and fault scarps, have been documented locally in the eastern Athabasca Basin, and available data indicate that they are spatially associated with mineralization. However, the mechanisms by which such topographic features were generated, their size and distribution at the regional scale, as well as their relationship to mineralization, are still not completely understood. A 100 by 60 square kilometre area of the southeastern Athabasca Basin, encompassing the McArthur River, Phoenix, and Key Lake deposits, was selected to study the relationship between these topographic features and U mineralization. In this region three dominant sets of sub-vertical faults were identified on the basis of aeromagnetic data: northeast-trending, north–northwest-trending, and northwest-trending. A detailed three-dimensional (3-D) model of this part of the basin was constructed using data from more than 1200 drill holes. This model reveals numerous dominantly northeast-trending ridges and valleys in the unconformity surface. Among these, a prominent northeast-trending ridge is situated close to the McArthur River – Key Lake deposits trend. Structural interpretation and cross-sections illustrate that the topographic features that have been documented in previous studies are a function of three principal factors: (i) pre-Athabasca group ductile-brittle faulting and alteration; (ii) differential weathering and erosion; and (iii) syn- to post-Athabasca ductile-brittle reactivation of pre-existing graphite-rich ductile shear zones. The topographic features and associated faults may have acted as conduits and barriers to fluid flow and thus controlled alteration patterns and uranium mineralization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".