MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2908548518 · doi:10.4095/222928

Mississippi Valley-type (MVT) Pb-Zn potential in Middle and Upper Devonian carbonate deposits of northeastern Alberta, and implications for future exploration based on diagenesis and isotope geochemistry

2006· report· en· W2908548518 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.J. Rice, Jeffrey Scott. Lonnee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianGeologyDiagenesisCarbonateGeochemistryCarbonate rockPaleontologySedimentary rockChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Middle and Upper Devonian carbonate deposits in northeastern Alberta were investigated in outcrop and core for their Mississippi Valley-type (MVT) lead and zinc potential. A detailed petrographic study indicates that many, but not all, of the diagenetic products associated with the Pine Point - Presqu'ile Barrier deposits were found. Isotopic analysis of the rocks suggests the diagenetic fluid(s) responsible for dolomitization in the area was modified Devonian seawater. Stable isotope data from the Mikkwa Formation at Harper Creek, and the Methy Formation at Whitemud Falls, fall within, or are marginal to similar studies on the Pine Point - Presqu'ile Barrier deposits. 87Sr/86Sr values from the Mikkwa Formation at Harper Creek and Vermilion Chutes show some similarities to Pine Point dolomite data. Overall, the integrated data do not rule out the possibility of MVT Pb-Zn deposits in northeastern Alberta, but do not support exploration at the sites examined.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.147
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPaleontology and Stratigraphy of Fossils→French-language works237,207→