Geochemical and Geochronological Discrimination of Biotite Types at the Detour Lake Gold Deposit, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Detour Lake deposit is at a faulted contact between mafic volcanic and siliciclastic to volcaniclastic rocks, differing from other orogenic Au deposits in the dominantly greenschist facies Abitibi region, by possessing amphibolite facies assemblages. Consequently, typical indicator minerals for mineralization, like secondary biotite, may not be useful for locating ore zone, due to the challenge of distinguishing hydrothermal versus metamorphic and magmatic phases. Herein, geochemical and 40Ar/39Ar geochronological data are presented for biotite from mineralized and barren (distal) magmatic rocks to characterize potential geochemical and geochronological variations between biotite types. Petrological observations reveal four biotite types: (1) Biotite hosted in mineralized, sulphidized quartz-calcite veins, (2) halo biotite at the margins of the aforementioned veins; (3) host rock biotite defining the foliation within the mafic volcanic rocks of the deposit; and (4) biotite defining the foliation within the barren meta-plutonic host rocks. Chemical analysis reveals a lower Ti- and higher Mg-content of mineralized biotite types, indicative of secondary hydrothermal processes. 40Ar/39Ar ages for all biotite types (2600–2390 Ma) post-date the main syn-deformation mineralization event at Detour Lake (≤2700 Ma). These results suggest chemical variations within biotite are due to a post-mineralization hydrothermal event, thus biotite should be used cautiously as a vector for gold mineralization in amphibolite facies terranes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".