MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910796490 · doi:10.4095/214832

Fluid evolution and pressure regimes in the Campbell - Red Lake gold deposit, Red Lake mine trend, Red Lake, Ontario: fluid-inclusion evidence for a protracted, highly dynamic hydrothermal system

2003· report· en· W2910796490 on OpenAlexaffabout
Guoxiang Chi, B Dubé, Kenneth Williamson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHydrothermal circulationInclusion (mineral)OceanographyPore water pressureGeochemistryFluid inclusionsHydrology (agriculture)MineralogyPaleontologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fluid inclusions were studied in quartz grains assigned to pre -, syn -, and post - main-stage gold mineralization (Q1, Q2, and Q3) in the Campbell-Red Lake gold deposit. Carbonic fluid inclusions, dominated by CO2 with variable amounts of CH4 andN2, are predominant in all stages. Aqueous inclusions are rare in Q1 and Q2, but common in Q3. Using homogenization temperatures of 350º, 390º and 320ºC for aqueous inclusions in Q1, Q2, and Q3 respectively, fluid pressures of up to 2706, 2574, and 1000 bars (corresponding to lithostatic loads of 10.2, 9.7 and 3.8 km) have been obtained from the isochores of carbonic fluid inclusions. Large fluctuations in fluid pressure within individual stages are attributed to variation between lithostatic and subhydrostatic regimes in relation to structural evolution. The extreme scarcity of aqueous inclusions in Q1 and Q2 suggests a 'dry' (water-deficient) carbonic-rich hydrothermal system with CH4 and N2, whose gold transporting capacity needs further examination.

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 score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.632

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 studies0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207