Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study area is characterized by complex terrane encompassing the junction of three major tectonic belts: the Coast Plutonic Belt, the Intermontane Belt, and the Cascade Belt. Examination of the detailed tectonic framework was facilitated by the construction of a time-space plot which illustrates the salient features of the six small-scale tectonic belts within the area. Subsequent examination of metal deposits was facilitated by the MINDEP inventory file which supplied location and reference information. Detailed descriptive information on metal deposits was categorized and tabulated with respect to metals, deposit type, host rock formation and host rock type. This data was then integrated into the tectonic framework to outline a metallogenic model for the area. A simplistic model for the evolution of the major features in the area involves eugeosynclinal and trench-like deposition from Upper Paleozoic until Jurassic-Cretaceous time when the developing Coast volcanic and plutonic arc collided with the established Intermontane arc on the east. Arc volcanism in the Coast Plutonic Belt produced the initial volcanogenic metal sulfide accumulations in the area which subsequently were remobilized into adjacent areas during collision. The axis of collision contains a major magmatic sulfide deposit which probably formed at this time as a result of collision. Significant mineralization is found also west of the collision axis near the deep-seated Hozameen fault along which gold-rich fluids have formed veins near serpentine bodies. Similarly, a large disseminated gold deposit occurs in slate adjacent to the Hozameen fault in the area of major vein mineralization. Subduction responsible for the Tertiary episode of plutonism and volcanism centered in the Cascade Belt also produced small skarn, vein and porphyry deposits during a subsequent episode of remobilization mineralization.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".