MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903597970 · doi:10.5382/sp.21.06

Kiruna-Type Iron Oxide-Apatite (IOA) and Iron Oxide Copper-Gold (IOCG) Deposits Form by a Combination of Igneous and Magmatic-Hydrothermal Processes: Evidence from the Chilean Iron Belt

2018· book-chapter· en· W2903597970 on OpenAlexaff
Adam C. Simon, Jaayke Knipping, Martín Reich, Fernando Barra, Artur Deditius, Laura Bilenker, Tristán Childress

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIron oxide copper gold ore depositsIron oxideHydrothermal circulationGeochemistryApatiteMagnetiteGeologyOxideIgneous rockMetallurgyMaterials scienceFluid inclusions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Iron oxide copper-gold (IOCG) and Kiruna-type iron oxide-apatite (IOA) deposits are commonly spatially and temporally associated with one another, and with coeval magmatism. Here, we use trace element concentrations in magnetite and pyrite, Fe and O stable isotope abundances of magnetite and hematite, H isotopes of magnetite and actinolite, and Re-Os systematics of magnetite from the Los Colorados Kiruna-type IOA deposit in the Chilean iron belt to develop a new genetic model that explains IOCG and IOA deposits as a continuum produced by a combination of igneous and magmatic-hydrothermal processes. The concentrations of [Al + Mn] and [Ti + V] are highest in magnetite cores and decrease systematically from core to rim, consistent with growth of magnetite cores from a silicate melt, and rims from a cooling magmatic-hydrothermal fluid. Almost all bulk δ18O values in magnetite are within the range of 0 to 5‰, and bulk δ56Fe for magnetite are within the range 0 to 0.8‰ of Fe isotopes, both of which indicate a magmatic source for O and Fe. The values of δ18O and δD for actinolite, which is paragenetically equivalent to magnetite, are, respectively, 6.46 ± 0.56 and −59.3 ± 1.7‰, indicative of a mantle source. Pyrite grains consistently yield Co/Ni ratios that exceed unity, and imply precipitation of pyrite from an ore fluid evolved from an intermediate to mafic magma. The calculated initial 187Os/188Os ratio (Osi) for magnetite from Los Colorados is 1.2, overlapping Osi values for Chilean porphyry-Cu deposits, and consistent with an origin from juvenile magma. Together, the data are consistent with a geologic model wherein (1) magnetite microlites crystallize as a near-liquidus phase from an intermediate to mafic silicate melt; (2) magnetite microlites serve as nucleation sites for fluid bubbles and promote volatile saturation of the melt; (3) the volatile phase coalesces and encapsulates magnetite microlites to form a magnetite-fluid suspension; (4) the suspension scavenges Fe, Cu, Au, S, Cl, P, and rare earth elements (REE) from the melt; (5) the suspension ascends from the host magma during regional extension; (6) as the suspension ascends, originally igneous magnetite microlites grow larger by sourcing Fe from the cooling magmatic-hydrothermal fluid; (7) in deep-seated crustal faults, magnetite crystals are deposited to form a Kiruna-type IOA deposit due to decompression of the magnetite-fluid suspension; and (8) the further ascending fluid transports Fe, Cu, Au, and S to shallower levels or lateral distal zones of the system where hematite, magnetite, and sulfides precipitate to form IOCG deposits. The model explains the globally observed temporal and spatial relationship between magmatism and IOA and IOCG deposits, and provides a valuable conceptual framework to define exploration strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations88
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207