MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2188259697 · doi:10.4095/213686

Occurrence of bleached mafic flows and their association with sockwork sulphides and banded iron-formation in the Crestaurum Formation of the late Archean Yellowknife Greenstone Belt, Northwest Territories

2002· report· en· W2188259697 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Luke Ootes, David R. Lentz

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaficGreenstone beltArcheanGeologyGeochemistryBanded iron formation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the northern part of the late Archean Yellowknife Greenstone Belt, tholeiitic basalt of the Crestaurum Formation is bleached along a 7 km strike length. Unbleached late volcanic gabbro dykes and sills transect the bleached mafic flows and constrain the alteration to synvolcanic processes. Bleaching is likely a result of silicification and Fe leaching with later chloritization of pillow selvages. These altered flows are intercalated with thinly layered, silica-rich, metavolcaniclastic rocks, which have been referred to as 'cherty tuff'. Petrographic and oxygen isotopic constraints indicate that the chert component is minor. An occurrence of discontinuous chert-magnetite iron-formation and discordant sulphide stockwork are indicative of synvolcanic hydrothermal activity. This hydrothermal activity is likely responsible for local alteration of the mafic flows, but does not explain the large-scale alteration. Stratigraphic considerations suggest that a hydrothermal alteration system existed within the Crestaurum Formation and preceded eruption of the overlying felsic metavolcanic rocks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.196
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→