MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2295159828

Abstract: The upper Hazelton Group in northwest British Columbia: an example of an ore-forming arc to rift transition

2006· article· en· W2295159828 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tony Barresi, JoAnne L. Nelson, D J Alldrick, J. Dostal

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyRiftPillow lavaTerranePaleontologyFaciesUnconformityGroup (periodic table)LithologyGeochemistryBasaltVolcanic rockSedimentary rockTectonicsVolcanoStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In island arcs, the latest stage of subduction-related processes is commonly followed by an extensional tectonic regime. The Stikine terrane of the Canadian Cordillera records one such transition in the rocks of the Early to Middle Jurassic upper Hazelton Group, in northwestern British Columbia. These rocks are host to the world-class Eskay Creek volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit. Recent targeted studies of the upper Hazelton Group have documented a number of characteristics which confi rm that the upper Hazelton Group represents a shift from arc building during the Early Jurassic to an extensional environment during the late Early to Middle Jurassic. These characteristics include 1) the presence of original rift bounding faults; 2) unconformities that are associated with rift fi lling conglomerates, including one that grades into more distal facies argillite; 3) a shift in the geochemical signature of mainly intermediate Early Jurassic calc-alkaline volcanic rocks to Middle Jurassic bimodal rhyolites and tholeiitic basalts; and 4) evidence for a major transcurrent tectonic regime, which opened distinct rift segments that were separated by horsts of older Stikinian units. Although the upper Hazelton Group is composed of separate sub-basins, the lithologies, geochemistry and morphologies of far-separated segments correspond closely to one another. The Willow Ridge Complex (WRC), and the Pillow Basalt Ridge Complex (PBR), which are 100 km apart, each contain a succession of sedimentary and bimodal volcanic rocks between 1000 m thick sequences of mainly pillow basalt. These middle units, in both regions, are very similar to the strata that host the Eskay Creek deposit and may represent a repetition of the conditions that were favourable to mineralization at Eskay Creek. New whole-rock major oxide and trace element geochemical analyses of 17 samples collected from the WRC agree with previous interpretations that they were deposited in a rift setting. The chemistry of these rocks is similar to those that host the Eskay Creek VMS deposit and other VMS-hosting volcanic rocks world-wide. The WRC is composed of a bimodal suite of mainly basalts and rhyolites. Basalts from the WRC are characterized by: a) a negative correlation of TiO2 with Mg number in compositionally-similar, TiO2-rich tholeiitic MORB; b) a slight enrichment in light REE (Lan/Smn = 1.83) and fl at heavy REE (Gdn/Ybn = 1.19); c) slight enrichment of strongly incompatible elements and a small negative Nb anomaly in mantle-normalized incompatible-element diagrams. Rhyolites from the WRC have broadly similar characteristics to basalts (Lan/Smn = 3.01, and Gdn/Ybn = 0.86) but they have strong negative Ti and weak positive Zr anomalies. The similarity in trace element abundances between rhyolites and basalts rules out derivation of rhyolite from basalt via fractional crystallization. All but the most primitive basalts are interpreted to be derived from sublithospheric mantle, and rhyolites are interpreted to be derived from partial melting of crustal 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.180
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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