Geology and mineralization in the Lorraine property area : Omineca Mining Division, British Columbia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lorraine property area occupies the north eastern part of the Duckling Creek syenite located within the central part of the Hogem batholith in British Columbia. The rocks of the Lorraine property area consist of "metasomatic syenites" or "fenites" formed by the metasomatism of the fractured Hogem diorite. They are believed to have been derived from a hypothetical alkaline magma formed beneath the diorite. The residual magma differentiated from the alkaline magma, produced late dykes and hydrothermal fluid. A K-Ar date, 170±8 m. y.(Lower Jurassic) may correspond to both the minimum age of the fenites and the maximum age of the sulphide mineralization at the Lorraine property. Also, the age may mark the time point dividing the first division and the second division of the Hogem batholith. The characteristic minerals of the successive stages of alteration are 1. biotite, 2. albite, 3. orthoclase, if. quartz, 5. sericite, 6. chlorite, and 7. epidote. The altering fluid contained concentrations of soda, potash, silica, hydrogen sulphide, water, and a minor amount of lime. The primary sulphides are bornite, chalcopyrite, and pyrite. The Lorraine deposit posseses no noticeable gossan, but contains secondary copper minerals such as covellite, chalcocite, azurite and malachite. The deposit is divided in plan into three mineral zones on the basis of the primary sulphide assemblages. The dykes, mafic rocks, and fractures were the main controls of mineralization. The composition of the hydro thermal, fluid changed as sulphur reacted with iron of the host rock to form pyrite. The reduced sulphur ratio appears to have caused deposition of bornite and chalcopyrite. In the mineral zones pyrite was replaced progressively by chalcopyrite and bornite. The best classification for the Lorraine deposit is xenothermal.
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 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".