Uranium-rich diagenetic fluids provide the key to unconformity-related uranium mineralization in the Athabasca Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Proterozoic Athabasca Basin is well known for its unusually large-tonnage and high-grade 'unconformity-related' uranium (U) deposits, however, explanations for the basin-wide U endowment have not been clearly identified. Previous studies indicate that U-rich brines with up to ~600 ppm U and variable Na/Ca ratios (from Na-dominated to Ca-dominated) were present at the sites of U mineralization, but it is unknown whether such fluids were developed solely in the vicinity of the U deposits or at a basinal scale. Our microthermometric and LA-ICP-MS analyses of fluid inclusions in quartz overgrowths from the barren part of the basin indicate that U-rich brines (0.6 to 26.8 ppm U), including Na-dominated and Ca-dominated varieties, were widely developed in the basin. These U concentrations, although not as high as the highest found in the U deposits, are more than two orders of magnitude higher than most naturally occurring geologic fluids. The basin-scale development of U-rich diagenetic fluids is interpreted to be related to several geologic factors, including availability of basinal brines and U-rich lithologies, and a hydrogeologic framework that facilitated fluid circulation and U leaching. The combination of these favorable conditions is responsible for the U fertility of the Athabasca Basin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".