MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922035899 · doi:10.1144/geochem2018-082

Petrography and geochemistry of tourmaline breccia in the Longtoushan Au deposit, South China: genesis and its exploration significance

2019· article· en· W2922035899 on OpenAlexaff
Mingji Zhang, Dehui Zhang, Bo Zhao, Mingqian Wu, Bo Bao, Yingkang Liu, C. K. Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTourmalinePetrographyGeochemistryBrecciaGeologyChinaPetrologyArchaeologyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Longtoushan Au deposit, located in the Qin-Hang Metallogenic Belt, South China, is a breccia-hosted epithermal Au deposit. It is characterized by the distinctive occurrence of magmatic-hydrothermal tourmaline-cemented breccia. Tourmaline-group minerals have an extensive range of chemical composition that could reflect their host environments, including some of economic interest. To investigate the potential of tourmaline as a geochemical indicator for ore exploration, chemical and boron isotope compositions of tourmaline from the Longtoushan Au deposit have been determined. Tourmaline mainly occurs as orbicular aggregates, clusters and veinlets in rhyolite porphyries, granite porphyries and in spatially associated hydrothermal breccias (Au-mineralized and Au-barren). Three types of tourmaline (I, II and III) are recognized at Longtoushan, most of which being alkali-deficient schorl-dravites. The pre-ore Tourmaline I in the rhyolite porphyry is Fe-rich schorl, contrasting with the dravitic ore-stage Tourmaline II in the mineralized breccia and Tourmaline III in the granite porphyry. Locally, Tourmaline II shows concentric zoning which correlates with core-rim chemical variations (higher Fe, Al in the rim than in the core). Tourmalines from Longtoushan are characterized by a dominant MgFe -1 exchange vector and have relatively low Na contents (avg. 0.66 apfu; formula normalized on 15 total cations), indicating they possibly crystallized in reduced fluids of low-salinity. The δ 11 B values of tourmalines from this study fall in a narrow range of −14.5 to −10.2‰, indicating dominant magmatic-hydrothermal fluids of continent crust origin. The results suggest that tourmaline from Longtoushan may originate from boron-rich vapor fluids unmixed from felsic magmas. Tourmaline breccia was likely formed by hydraulic fracturing, with open spaces infilled by boron-rich boiling fluids released from the magma. The fluid boiling process during brecciation would be critical for Au-bearing pyrite precipitation, which could compete with coexisting tourmaline for Fe, leaving tourmaline Fe-depleted. We propose that the Fe-poor dravitic tourmaline in the hydrothermal breccia could be used as prospecting guide at the Longtoushan Au deposit. Supplementary material: major element and boron isotope composition analyses of tourmaline are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.4468808

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 score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.207

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207