MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2362432006

PARAGENESIS OF PLATINUM-GROUP MINERALS

2001· article· en· W2362432006 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscience · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChromitePlatinum groupMaficGeochemistryOphioliteGeologyParagenesisUltramafic rockMineralSilicatePlatinumChemistryCatalysisMetamorphic rock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Platinum group minerals (PGM) occur either as PGM dominant deposits or as by products of Ni Cu deposits. The PGM dominant deposits are associated with mafic ultramafic layered complexes, ophiolite complexes, and Alaskan type complexes. The Ni Cu deposits containing PGM are associated with noritic rocks, intrusive equivalent of flood basalts, and komatiitic lavas and intrusions. The PGM associated with the mafic ultramafic layered complexes are dominated by Pt Pd sulfides, Pt Fe alloys, Ru sulfides (mainly laurite, occurring as inclusions in chromite), Rh sulfides, Pt Pd tellurides, Pt arsenides (mainly sperrylite) and Pd alloys. Three principal categories of mode of occurrence of PGM are evident: (1) association with base metal sulfides; (2) association with silicates; (3) association with chromite or other oxides. The PGM associated with ophiolite complexes consist predominantly of just three of the PGE: Ru, Ir and Os. Pt, Pd and Rh enter only in minor amounts or very rarely from discrete minerals. The PGM are mainly restricted to the four groups: (1) alloys (Os Ru Ir, Os Ir, Ir Os, Pt Pd Fe, Pd Sb Pt, Pt); (2) sulfides (RuS 2, OsS 2, Ir Cu sulfides); (3) sulfarsenides (OsAsS, IrAsS, PtAsS, RhAsS); (4) arsenides (PtAs 2). The PGM in the Alaskan type complexes occur primarily as Pt Fe( Ni Cu) alloys, geversite, cooperite, sperrylite, erlichmanite, and malanite Paragenetically, the PGM in the Alaskan type complexes can be subdivided into two groups. Group 1 consists predominantly of platinum bearing alloys associated with chromite and silicates segregated from high temperature silicate melts and coprecipitated with chromite, and Group 2 includes other PGM associated with base metal sulfides and arsenides formed during later metamorphism and serpentinization. The PGM from Ni Cu deposits are dominated by Pd and Pt minerals. PGM are found associated with chromitites in the layered mafic ultramafic complexes, ophiolites and Alaskan type complexes. Laurite is the dominant PGM inclusion in chromites; Pt , Pd , and Rh bearing minerals occur, in general, as interstitial phases. Many investigations agree that laurite inclusions in unfractured chromites are magmatic in origin as opposed to an earlier view that ascribed the formation of laurite to exsolution of PGE from the host chromite during cooling. Hydrothermal PGM deposits have been recognized in a variety of environments, even in the mafic ultramafic complexes. Current models for the genesis of these deposits involve transport of PGE and associated metals by chloride complexes during late stage magmatic hydrothermal processes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.184 · 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.

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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscienceSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207