PGE–(REE–Ti)-Rich Micrometer-Sized Inclusions, Mineral Associations, Compositional Variations, and a Potential Lode Source of Platinum-Group Minerals in the Sisim Placer Zone, Eastern Sayans, Russia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We report the results of a mineralogical investigation of placer samples from the upper reaches of the Sisim watershed, near Krasnoyarsk, in Eastern Sayans, Russia. The placer grains are predominantly Os–Ir–(Ru) alloys (80%) that host various inclusions (i.e., platinum-group elements (PGE)-rich monosulfide, PGE-rich pentlandite, Ni–Fe–(As)-rich laurite, etc.) and subordinate amounts of Pt–Fe alloys. Analytical data (wavelength- and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy) are presented for all the alloy minerals and the suite of micrometer-sized inclusions that they contain, as well as associated grains of chromian spinel. The assemblage was likely derived from chromitite units of the Lysanskiy mafic–ultramafic complex, noted for its Ti–(V) mineralization. In the Os–Ir–(Ru) alloys, the ratio Ru/Ir is ≤1, Ir largely substitutes for Os, and compositional variations indicate the scheme [Ir + Ru] → 2Os. In contrast, in the laurite–erlichmanite series, Ir and Os are strongly and positively correlated, whereas Ir and Ru are negatively correlated; Ru and Os are inversely correlated. These compositions point to the scheme [Os2+ + 2Ir3+ + □] → 4Ru2+ or alternatively, to Os2+ + Ir2+ → 2Ru2+. We deduce a potential sequence of crystallization in the parental rock and address the effects of decreasing temperature and increasing fugacity of sulfur and arsenic on the assemblage. Inclusions of Ti-rich minerals in the alloy grains are consistent with the Lysanskiy setting; the complete spectrum of chromite–magnesiochromite compositions indicates that an important part of that complex was eroded. A localized fluid-dominated micro-environment produced the unique association of laurite with monazite-(Ce), again considered a reflection of the special attributes of the Lysanskiy complex.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".