Geochemistry and Nd isotopes of the François Lake plutonic suite, Endako batholith: host and progenitor to the Endako molybdenum camp, central British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Endako low-F granodiorite-type porphyry Mo deposit is hosted by the Triassic to Eocene Endako batholith, which comprises five temporally distinct plutonic suites, only one of which is mineralized. Pre-mineralization suites range in composition from diorite to granodiorite. The synmineralization JurassicCretaceous François Lake suite includes two granodiorite- to monzogranite-bearing subsuites. Postmineralization phases include the Eocene Sam Ross Creek monzogranite. The batholith spans a silica range of 4480 wt.% and consists of metaluminous to slightly peraluminous, low- to high-K, I-type granitoids; the Sam Ross Creek phase is an A-type granite. Positive ε Nd(T) values (+1.1 to +7.2) indicate derivation predominately from juvenile source materials, but with variable input from an older crustal component. Evidence suggests generation of older plutonic suites in a juvenile arc-type setting and younger K-rich felsic suites via recycling of juvenile arc crust without significant mantle-derived contributions. Three distinct Mo-deposition events in the Endako camp are linked to repeated generations of oxidized, highly evolved monzogranitic phases (pre-ore dykes, aplitic Nithi and Casey intrusions) belonging to both François Lake subsuites. Late pre-ore dykes with "Casey-like" geochemical signatures, along with massive unmineralized Casey intrusions near the Endako deposit, could reflect repeated injections from an underlying magma chamber that remained molten during the youngest Mo-deposition event. A genetic link may exist between the Sam Ross Creek phase, a pluton with Climax-type granite characteristics, and Eocene kaolinite alteration in the Endako deposit. Also, potential exists for Eocene-age Climax-type Mo mineralization within the Endako mining camp.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".