A Study of the Composition, Distribution, and Genesis of Pyrrhotite In the Copper Cliff Offset, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pyrrhotite (Po) from five orebodies (830, 865, 880, 890, and 100 OB) in the Copper Cliff Offset Dike (CCOD) at Sudbury, Ontario was studied using powder X-ray diffraction data and Rietveld analysis, SEM-EDS, magnetic colloid, optical petrographic techniques, and Laser Ablation-ICP-MS in order to: (1) quantify the distribution of NC (non-magnetic, symmetry higher than monoclinic) and 4C (magnetic, monoclinic in symmetry) Po; (2) characterize the major, minor, and trace-element chemistries of both polymorphs; and (3) determine the factors enhancing the stability of NC Po. Results confirm that both NC and 4C Po are present, with ratios varying between 0 to 0.97. In general, 4C Po is the dominant polymorph within the sampled OB, with the exception of the 100 OB, which is dominated by NC Po. Mineral chemistry indicates that there is an almost complete compositional overlap between the major, minor, and trace-element compositions of NC and 4C Po from the CCOD. The data also show that both polymorphs are slightly metal-deficient relative to the ideal chemistry of 4C Po, Fe7S8. There were no significant differences found in the Ni contents of either polymorph. Data revealed that the main mineralogical difference between the five OB was the presence of ilmenite in the 830, 865, 880, and 890 OB, whereas magnetite dominates in the 100 OB. Mineralization occurs along the eastern margin of the 830–890 OB, in contrast to the 100 OB, where mineralization occurs in the center of the dike. The increased abundance of NC Po in the 100 OB may be explained by this difference in the style of mineralization, specifically, the proximity of ore to the surrounding country rock. Therefore, f O2 may have directly influenced the distribution and stabilization of NC Po, which would then impact the observed NC:4C Po ratios in the selected OB.
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) | 0.001 | 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".