A Special Issue Devoted to the Mineral Deposits of the Sudbury Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The magmatic Ni-Cu-platinum-group element (PGE) deposits in the Sudbury area were discovered in 1883 (Giblin, 1984). As Ni has grown from a chemical curiosity through early use in armor plating to its present-day pervasive role in modern industry, resources have continued to be discovered around the periphery of the Sudbury Igneous Complex and even richer ore zones have been identified in the footwall rocks, making Sudbury one of the world’s largest and most productive mining camps. The premining resource (production + current resource) of the Sudbury mining camp has been estimated to be >1,648 million metric tons at ~1.2 percent Ni and ~1.0 percent Cu (Naldrett and Lightfoot, 1993). As of 2000, the camp had produced 9.69 million metric tons of Ni, 9.59 million metric tons of Cu, 69.6 thousand metric tons of Co, 116 metric tons of Au, 319 metric tons of Pt, 335 metric tons of Pd, 37.6 metric tons of Rh, 23.3 metric tons of Ru, 11.5 metric tons of Ir, 3,710 metric tons of Ag, 3,002 metric tons of Se, and 256 metric tons of Te from 781 million metric tons of ore (Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Information and Marketing Services Section, 2002). Sudbury remains one of the world’s largest producers of Ni, with an annual production of ~114 thousand metric tons, plus ~137 thousand metric tons of Cu, ~1.8 metric tons of Au, and ~11.4 metric tons of total platinum-group minerals (Ontario Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, Information and Marketing Services Section, 2000). Because of its great economic significance, the Sudbury basin has been studied intensively by local mining companies, federal and provincial survey geologists, and numerous university researchers. Landmark papers include the post-war synthesis by Stevenson (1963), the first recognition of the impact origin of the structure by Dietz …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.078 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".