QUANTITATIVE PHASE-ANALYSIS BY THE RIETVELD METHOD USING X-RAY POWDER-DIFFRACTION DATA: APPLICATION TO THE STUDY OF ALTERATION HALOS ASSOCIATED WITH VOLCANIC-ROCK-HOSTED MASSIVE SULFIDE DEPOSITS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative determination of the mineralogical composition of hydrothermally altered rocks was performed by means of the Rietveld method using X-ray powder-diffraction data. Initially, experiments were carried out to minimize systematic errors arising from preferred orientation of particles as well as micro-absorption. The precision of the proposed method was tested by independent replicate sample-preparation and analyses. The closeness of the replicate phase-determinations showed that random within-laboratory errors were comparatively small. Expressed as chemical compositions, the quantitative results are in good agreement with the major oxide concentrations determined by X-ray fluorescence. The results indicate that the relative abundances of phases and refined element substitutions were accurately determined. The method developed was applied to hydrothermally \naltered rocks from the Waterloo volcanic-rock-hosted massive sulfide (VHMS) deposit in Queensland, Australia. Hierarchical \ncluster analysis led to the discrimination of several mineralogically distinct alteration-induced assemblages. These mineral assemblages are characteristic of specific zones of alteration. The strong spatial zoning with respect to the mineralized body and the distinct mineralogical assemblages of the alteration halo are interpreted to result primarily from varying degrees of hydrolytic decomposition and potassium metasomatism of the wallrocks. Based on these results, we suggest that quantitative phase-analysis by the proposed method represents a new powerful tool in studies of alteration halos.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".