MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264066276 · doi:10.17491/jgsi/2008/710207

Occurrence of Hydrothermal Phosphate Minerals in the Gold Mineralized Zones at Hutti Gold Deposit, Karnataka, South India

2008· article· en· W2264066276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Srinivasa Sarma, Janet R. Muhling, M. Ram Mohan, Neal J. McNaughton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Geological Society of India · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonaziteGeologyGeochemistryHydrothermal circulationPlacer miningMineralization (soil science)MineralMineralogyPhosphate mineralsDharwar CratonCratonZirconPhosphateMetallurgyChemistryPaleontologyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We report here, for the first time, the occurrence of hydrothermal monazite and xenotime in alteration haloes associated with the gold-mineralized zones of the Hutti Gold Deposit in Karnataka, India These minerals were identified by systematic scanning of polished thin sections in an SEM using backscattered electron and energy dispersive X-ray detectors Most of the grains are very small (<10 μm), although some larger grains (30-40 μm) have also been identified Hydrothermal monazite and xenotime, though volumetncally minor, have been found to be important components in many orogenic gold deposits in Australia, Canada, Brazil and South Africa, as they form a part of the primary ore mineral assemblage, either in ore-bearing veins itself or are intergrown with ore minerals in wallrock alteration zones Both monazite and xenotime are excellent geochronometers, and their importance is that they allow precise ages to be obtained for gold mineralization events The discovery of these minerals in hydrothermally altered rocks from the Hutti gold deposit, Dharwar Craton enables us to estimate the age of gold mineralization event(s)

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.492

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Geological Society of IndiaSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207