Three‐dimensional geometry, ore distribution and time‐integrated mass transfer through the quartz–tourmaline–gold vein network of the Sigma deposit (Abitibi belt, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present a reconstruction of the three‐dimensional (3D) geometry and gold grade distribution of shear zone‐hosted, Au‐mineralized, quartz–tourmaline veins of the Sigma deposit (Abitibi belt). Host shears and veins form a network of anastomosing, steeply dipping structures associated with smaller subhorizontal extensional veins. Our reconstruction has been carried out using the exceptionally large geological database of the mine. From this database, we extracted the geometric position, thickness and gold grades of geometrically best‐defined steep veins contained in a representative subvolume of the deposit. These data allowed the 3D representation of 53 veins, which have been constructed by fitting surfaces through the geometrical data and by contouring thickness and gold grade. The geometry of the network is mainly characterized by: (i) a few large segmented veins, with sinuous and helicoidal shape, and typical vertical dimension of >100 m; (ii) a large number of smaller vertical veins, some of which splay off the steep veins with high dip angles; (iii) subhorizontal extension veins (joints) located at, or close to, the tips of steep veins. The absolute thickness of the vertically short veins is the same as that of the large veins, suggesting that they formed simultaneously, but only a few of them interconnect to form vertically continuous bodies. Patchy, vertically elongated zones of high dilation are present in the large veins, and are poorly correlated with Au‐rich zones. They presumably represent former high‐permeability zones of the network. The highest gold grades occur at the interconnections between the large veins and small splays or subhorizontal joints. This indicates the important role of vein interconnection for fluid flow and gold precipitation within the network. Combining the calculation of the volume of the network with the estimation of tourmaline abundance in the veins, we calculate that 2.1 × 106 m3 of tourmaline and 3.2 × 106 m3 of quartz precipitated during Au deposition.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".