MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148587619 · doi:10.2113/gsecongeo.98.6.1173

Structural Controls on Carlin-Type Gold Mineralization in the Gold Bar District, Eureka County, Nevada

2003· article· en· W2148587619 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ozcan Yigit, Eric P. Nelson, Murray W. Hitzman, Albert H. Hofstra

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBarrick Gold Corporation
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)Bar (unit)GeochemistryGeologyGeographyArchaeologyOceanographySoil science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Gold Bar district in the southern Roberts Mountains, 48 km northwest of Eureka, Nevada, contains one main deposit (Gold Bar), five satellite deposits, and other resources. Approximately 0.5 Moz of gold have been recovered from a resource of 1,639,000 oz of gold in Carlin-type gold deposits in lower plate, miogeoclinal carbonate rocks below the Roberts Mountains thrust. Host rocks are unit 2 of the Upper Member of the Devonian Denay Formation and the Bartine Member of the McColley Canyon Formation. Spatial and temporal relations between structures and gold mineralization indicate that both pre-Tertiary and Tertiary structures were important controls on gold mineralization. Gold mineralization occurs primarily along high-angle Tertiary normal faults, some of which are reactivated reverse faults of Paleozoic or Mesozoic age. Most deposits are localized at the intersection of northwest- and northeast-striking faults. Alteration includes decalcification, and to a lesser extent, silicification along high-angle faults. Jasperoid (pervasive silicification), which formed along most faults and in some strata-bound zones, accounts for a small portion of the ore in every deposit. In the Gold Canyon deposit, a high-grade jasperoid pipe formed along a Tertiary normal fault which was localized along a zone of overturned fault-propagation folds and thrust faults of Paleozoic or Mesozoic age.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.741
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic GeologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207