MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943682078

An investigation on the control of gold mineralization in the Beardmore-Geraldton greenstone belt and surrounding Quetico-Wabigoon subprovince boundary area

2014· dissertation· en· W2943682078 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria R. Stinson

Bibliographic record

VenueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University) · 2014
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenstone beltMineralization (soil science)GeochemistryGeologyBoundary (topology)MineralogyArcheanMathematicsSoil science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Beardmore-Geraldton greenstone belt is located along the boundary between the Wabigoon and Quetico subprovinces in the Superior province of the Canadian Shield. Historical gold mines and current gold exploration camps are located throughout the Beardmore-Geraldton greenstone belt and adjacent Wabigoon subprovince in moderately to steeply dipping ductile to brittle-ductile shear zones in many types of lithologies, with various metamorphic grades, and alteration styles. The shear zones typically strike east-west along the boundary of the Beardmore-Geraldton greenstone belt with the Wabigoon subprovince to the north as well as along the boundary with the Quetico subprovince to the south.
\nField mapping and petrography, including microstructural analysis, were used to characterize the gold mineralization and investigate the control on gold mineralization in the Elmhirst, Castlewood, Pagwachuan, and Milestone properties in Greenstone, Ontario. Two property-scale and seven trench-scale maps were produced from field mapping and one hundred twenty-three transmitted and reflected light thin sections were prepared from samples collected from these properties. Lithology, structure, microstructure, metamorphic grade, alteration, and subprovince were considered as possible controlling factors on gold mineralization.
\nIn the study area gold mineralization is hosted in relatively competent lithologies including schistose to mylonitic metamorphosed granodiorite, syenite, and pegmatite; chlorite-albite schist, schistose amphibolite, and garnet-hornblende-biotite schist. The regional-scale structures that host gold mineralization are ductile to brittle-ductile shear zones that have a penetrative, schistose foliation and rarely a mylonitic fabric. The property-scale structures that host gold mineralization are folded, mylonitized, and boudinaged quartz veins; shear-related early, late, and complex folds; folded fault breccia, and pressure shadows of rigid minerals within schistose to mylonitic fabric. Gold mineralization is located in areas of micro-folds, micro-boudins, micro-fault breccia, undulatory extinction, and grain size reduction along irregular grain boundaries, subgrain boundaries, folded healed fractures, and in pressure shadows within areas of strain heterogeneity. Gold mineralization is located in both areas of greenschist facies and amphibolite facies metamorphism in the study area. The styles of alteration also vary within the study area with sericite, hematite, ankerite, calcite, and unaltered samples all hosting gold mineralization. Both the Wabigoon and Quetico subprovinces host gold mineralization in similar structures and microstructures as the Beardmore-Geraldton greenstone belt although it is within different lithologies, metamorphic grades, and alteration styles.
\nSimilar structure and microstructure are always present in areas of gold mineralization in the study area while lithology, alteration, metamorphic grade, and subprovince vary. Gold mineralization within stable prograde and retrograde metamorphic minerals indicates that gold mineralization was synchronous with ductile to brittle-ductile deformation and metamorphism. Further gold exploration in the study area should focus on structure and microstructure as indicators for gold mineralization.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.802
Threshold uncertainty score0.957

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKnowledge Commons (Lakehead University)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207