MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132199801 · doi:10.1071/aseg2006ab095

Timing of sulphide saturation and ore formation in the Sudbury Igneous Complex

2006· article· en· W2132199801 on OpenAlex
Peter C. Lightfoot

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyIgneous rockGeochemistrySilicateNoriteSaturation (graph theory)PyrrhotiteMineralogyChemistryPyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Sudbury Igneous Complex (SIC) is widely believed to be the result of melt generation due to meteorite impact, and so models of Ni-Cu-PGE sulphide ore formation must be reconciled with this hypothesis. Moreover, the formation of the Ni and Cu sulphide ores is a product of sulphide saturation and segregation of immiscible sulphide melts, and like the ores at Noril’sk, those at Sudbury leave a fingerprint of the process in the comagmatic silicate rocks which are bereft of much of their Ni, Cu and PGE. At Sudbury, the thickest part of metal-depleted norite is located proximal to the largest known deposits, viz. the Creighton, Copper Cliff and Frood-Stobie Deposits. It is believed that the formation of the initial immiscible sulphide took place shortly after melt sheet formation, but well before any significant amount of silicate crystallization; sulphide saturation and segregation from the crustal melt sheet likely occurred under superheated conditions. The geological data provide important constraints on the sequence of events that formed the different orebodies in contact, footwall and offset dyke environments.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.898

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.194 · 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