<sup>40</sup>Ar/<sup>39</sup>Ar and Rb‐Sr Ages of the Tiegelongnan Porphyry Cu‐(Au) Deposit in the Bangong Co‐Nujiang Metallogenic Belt of Tibet, China: Implication for Generation of Super‐Large Deposit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Tiegelongnan deposit is a newly discovered super‐large porphyry‐epithermal Cu‐(Au) deposit in the western part of the Bangong Co‐Nujiang metallogenic belt, Tibet (China). Field geology and geochronology indicate that the porphyry mineralization was closely related to the Early Cretaceous intermediate‐felsic intrusions (ca. 123–120 Ma). Various epithermal ore and gangue mineral types were discovered in the middle‐shallow part of the orebody, indicating the presence of epithermal mineralization at Tiegelongnan. Potassic, propylitic, phyllic and advanced argillic alteration zones were identified. 40 Ar/ 39 Ar dating of hydrothermal biotite (potassic zone), sericite (phyllic zone), and alunite (advanced argillic zone) in/around the ore‐bearing granodiorite porphyry yielded 121.1±0.6 Ma (1σ), 120.8±0.7 Ma (1σ) and 117.9±1.6 Ma (1σ), respectively. Five hydrothermal mineralization stages were identified, of which the Stage IV pyrite was Rb‐Sr dated to be 117.5±1.8 Ma (2σ), representing the end of epithermal mineralization. Field geology and geochronology suggest that both the epithermal and porphyry mineralization belong to the same magmatic‐hydrothermal system. The Tiegelongnan super‐large Cu‐(Au) deposit may have undergone a prolonged magmatic‐hydrothermal evolution, with the major mineralization event occurring at ca.120–117Ma.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".