Abstract: Geology and geochemistry of the Rattling Brook gold deposit, western Newfoundland: An assessment in the context of new exploration models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Rattling Brook gold deposit is a large, dispersed, lowgrade system in which auriferous sulphides are disseminated or present in myriad tiny veinlets. Larger and more continuous quartz vein systems typical of most gold deposits are conspicuously absent. The dominant host rocks are altered Precambrian granites, but some of the best mineralization occurs in altered Precambrian metadiabase dykes and in Cambrian quartzite, limestone and phyllite. The mineralization must be postCambrian, but its timing is otherwise unconstrained, although a Silurian or younger age is implied by its undeformed character. The commonality of textures in mineralized rocks, and broadly similar alteration sequences, suggest that a single process deposited gold in all of these host rocks. Petrological and metallurgical studies indicate that free gold is very rare and imply that much of the gold is refractory, likely held within sulphides. The most likely candidates are gold-rich arsenopyrite or gold-rich arsenian pyrite, but the latter has yet to be firmly identified. Geochemical data indicate that there is very little associated Ag, and essentially no enrichment in Cu, Zn, Pb, Co, or Ni. There are strong Au-As-S correlations, and a diffuse Au-Ag correlation, but essentially no correlation between gold and the base metals. Auriferous samples are also commonly enriched in Te and W, and there is more diffuse enrichment in Sb. A few auriferous samples display marginal enrichment in Tl, but no obvious enrichment in Hg or Se is present. The geochemical characteristics and associations resemble those described from
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".