MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910083221 · doi:10.4095/211152

Implications of a preliminary fluid-inclusion study of giant quartz veins of the southern Great Bear magmatic zone, Northwest Territories

2000· report· en· W2910083221 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyQuartzInclusion (mineral)Fluid inclusionsGeochemistryMelt inclusionsPaleontologyMineralogyVolcano

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Giant quartz veins occur along brittle faults in the ca. 1865 Ma Great Bear magmatic zone. They comprise two or more generations of subparallel veins and stockworks in zones as much as 100 m wide and 10 km long. They contain local concentrations of hematite/specularite, pyrite, copper sulphides, and pitchblende. Fluid inclusions in the veins at two uranium showings, Crowfoot and Ted, were examined. The homogenization temperatures (Th) range from 96 to 217°C for Type I (2-phase liquid-rich) inclusions at Crowfoot, and from 122 to 169°C for Types I and III (3-phase liquid-rich) inclusions at Ted. Type II (2-phase vapour-rich) inclusions yield grossly different Th (228 445°C range), which do not represent true Th, but do suggest fluid mixing, as does the wide salinity range from 0.18 to 31.6 weight per cent NaCl equivalent. These data are consistent with the formation of the veins in a tensional epizonal environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.901

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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