THE SCADDING GOLD MINE, EAST OF THE SUDBURY IGNEOUS COMPLEX, ONTARIO: AN IOCG-TYPE DEPOSIT?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Scadding mine is only one of several small gold deposits and prospects in the regionally albitized Huronian metasedimentary rocks of the Sudbury – Wanapitei Lake area of Ontario. The locally brecciated, albitized and chloritized metasedimentary rocks that host the Scadding gold deposit have elevated Co, Cu, Ni, Fe, As and REE concentrations, and locally contain a wide variety of REE-rich minerals. Gold occurs as inclusions in pyrite, chalcopyrite and in chlorite. Fluid-inclusion data obtained from mineralized quartz veins indicate that gold was deposited from highly saline hydrothermal fluids (36–38 wt% NaCl) having a temperature range of 340–390°C. These fluid inclusions coexist with other, less abundant primary fluid inclusions of low salinity and comparable temperature. The lack of evidence for phase separation in the saline and dilute inclusions suggests the mixing of brines with dilute meteoric or metamorphic fluids as the possible mechanism for gold precipitation. We propose that Scadding is a modified iron oxide – copper – gold (IOCG) deposit in which Fe sulfides dominate over Fe oxides. Fluctuating Cl/S values in the hydrothermal fluids could explain the relative enrichment of the rocks in pyrite with respect to Ti-poor magnetite and hematite, both of which occur in the chlorite-rich (pyrite-poor) assemblages.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".