A fluid inclusion study of diagenetic fluids in<scp>P</scp>roterozoic and<scp>P</scp>aleozoic carbonate rocks,<scp>V</scp>ictoria<scp>I</scp>sland,<scp>NWT</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the presence of known economic resources in Canada's Arctic archipelago, Victoria Island remains understudied. This study addresses the fluid history and economic potential of two major carbonate units on Victoria Island by integrating fluid inclusion microthermometry withSEM‐EDSanalysis of evaporate mounds. Three cements containing fluid inclusion assemblages (FIA) occur in the Neoproterozoic Wynniatt Formation: saddle dolomite, brown dolomite and calcite, in paragenetic order. The two dolomite‐hosted cements have average homogenisation temperatures (Th) forFIAs (n = 3) of 108°C (saddle) and 101 and 116°C, but metastability precluded determining salinities; most calcite‐hosted fluid inclusions are too small and/or necked to obtainThvalues, but rare larger inclusions have salinities from 1.7 to 0.4 wt. % NaCl equiv.SEM‐EDSanalysis of evaporate mounds indicates the fluid changed from an earlyK‐rich (saddle dolomite), to a laterK + Na (brown dolomite), and finallyNa‐rich (calcite), which suggests mixing of two end‐member fluids (i.e.Na‐rich andK‐rich). Dolostone of the lower Paleozoic ‘Victoria Island formation’ contains two cements: early quartz and late dolomite. Quartz‐hostedFIAs (n = 2) have an averageThvalue of 126°C, and salinity of 23.2 wt. % NaCl equiv., whereasFIAs (n = 3) in dolomite have averageThvalues of 109, 116 and 124°C; metastability precluded determining salinity. Evaporate mound analysis for the cements indicates evolution from a Na‐rich to aNa + Kfluid through interaction with reservoir rocks. A reduced, metal‐rich fluid was present during quartz precipitation, as implied by the presence of pyrite framboids along growth zones and nanoparticles of barite and sulphide minerals (Zn,Cu andPb) in evacuated inclusions, which suggests the area may have potential to host base‐metal mineralisation. Importantly, distinguishing different fluid compositions in both of the case studies would not have been possible without evaporate mound analysis and therefore the results emphasise integrating this technique into diagenetic studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".