Resolving the role of carbonaceous material in gold precipitation in metasediment-hosted orogenic gold deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Carbonaceous material (CM) is commonly associated with gold and sulfides in metasediment-hosted orogenic gold deposits. The role of CM in Au deposition is controversial; CM has been proposed to contribute to gold deposition by reducing Au bisulfide complexes, or by facilitating sulfidation, which destabilizes Au in bisulfide complexes with resultant Au deposition. Integration of petrographic observations, thermodynamic models, and geochemical data from metasediment-hosted orogenic gold deposits in New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and West Africa reveals genetic links between sulfides, CM, and mineralization. The results are consistent with the coexistence of CM and pyrite as a consequence of their codeposition from ore fluids, with a minor proportion of CM originally in situ in the host rocks. Au is deposited when pyrite and CM deposition decreases H2S concentration in ore fluids, destabilizing Au(HS)2– complexes. Most CM in gold deposits is deposited from CO2 and CH4 in ore fluids. These findings are applicable to similar deposits worldwide.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".