Mineralogical and fluid inclusion characteristics of epithermal-style gold mineralization at the Goldy and Irene showings, Dawson Range, Yukon Territory, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jurassic-to Cretaceous-age gold mineralization at the Goldy and Irene showings in the Dawson Range, Yukon Territory occurs in intrusive igneous bodies and metasedimentary rocks of the Yukon-Tanana terrane.Petrography, fluid inclusion microthermometry, electron microprobe analysis, and SEM-BSE techniques were used to study the characteristics of Au mineralization.At the Goldy showing mineralization consists of: pyrite, arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite, (suspected) dissolved gold in sulfides, sphalerite, galena, +/-tetrahedrite-tennantite, +/-rutile and boulangerite in multiple stages of hydrothermal quartz-carbonate veining.At the Irene showing mineralization consists of: pyrite, arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite, galena, stibnite, electrum, rutile, boulangerite, and a variety of Sb-sulfides and sulfosalts hosted in quartz-carbonate veining.Fluid inclusion microthermometry of secondary inclusions hosted in quartz showed salinity ranges of 0-6 wt% NaCl eq at Goldy, and homogenization temperatures (Th L+V→L ) of 200-250 °C.At Irene salinity ranges of 5-15 wt% NaCl eq. and Th L+V→L of 140-230 °C were determined.The results of mineralogical and fluid inclusion studies suggest that the showings can be classified as low-(to intermediate)-sulfidation epithermal style mineralization.The dissimilarity of salinities and Th L+V→L values, with Irene being a cooler (and possibly deeper) hydrothermal system with higher salinities than Goldy indicates differing distances from a common heat source and more pronounced involvement of meteoric water at Goldy.Two different mineralizing events are proposed: a high T event involving As-Au association, and a lower T event, more consistent with epithermal T conditions involving Sb-Au association that is more pronounced at the Irene showing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".