Role of CO_2 fluid in the formation of gold deposits:Fluid inclusion evidences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of gold deposits formed from hot,aqueous fluids rich in carbon dioxide,but only minor significance has been paid attention to the role of the CO2 in the process of gold transport and deposition.Fluid inclusion,alteration assemblage and phase diagram are the clues to understand this importance issues.There are four types of fluid inclusions existed in the most of gold deposits:aqueous inclusion,H2O-CO2 inclusion,CO2 or CO2 rich inclusion and halite daughter mineral bearing ones.The distribution of aqueous and CO2 inclusions are located generally in different trails,only a few located in same trail,indicating the phase separation of fluids.The relationship between native gold and CO2 inclusions are either they occur in a same trail or the native gold occur inside the CO2 inclusions,as well as native gold occur at the wall of CO2 inclusions.It shows they are closely associated during the transportation and deposition.The composition of CO2 inclusions indicate most are CO2 with minor of H2S and CH4,etc.that was proved by the Tm(CO2)measurements.Phase features between H2S and CO2 fluids are very similar but the role of CO2 is served as buffer for the pH of the ore forming fluid and the H2S which formed complexes(AuH2S or AuHS)with gold in the fluid during the transport.When the hot(200-400 ℃)medium salinity ore forming fluid went up and took place of phase separation into CO2 rich(with Au)fluid and aqueous fluid,and deposited the gold with the CO2 rich flu id.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".