The south Newfoundland granophile mineral district: features and opportunities for research on blind deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The south coast of the island of Newfoundland is a diverse and potentially important district of granophile mineral deposits, in which several mineralized intrusive complexes span contrasting tectonostratigraphic zones of the Appalachian Orogen. In addition to molybdenum and tungsten deposits that represent potential producers, the district includes one of the world's largest producing fluorspar deposits, at St. Lawrence. The settings of mineral deposits vary, as do their associated commodities, but there is a common magmatic thread throughout the district. All major deposits are associated with evolved, alkali-calcic, siliceous granitoid rocks emplaced within a short time interval from ca. 388 Ma to ca. 375 Ma. Coherent U-Pb and Re-Os geochronology links these deposits to spatially associated plutons, even where direct physical connections are lacking. There are common geochemical themes that link prospective magmas, but these are not always easily visible through the geochemical and isotopic diversity connected to the contrasts in basement terranes along the belt. There is a dire need for other types of diagnostic data (e.g., Pb isotopes, accessory mineral chemistry) that can better unravel the respective contributions of magma sources, contaminants and fractionation histories to regional prospectivity. There are contrasts in the erosional levels revealed in individual complexes, from endocontact disseminated mineralization in high-level granites, to sheeted vein complexes and related hydrothermal lodes associated with hidden subsurface plutons. The Grey River - Moly Brook area provides the best example of the latter setting, and has all of the expected characteristics of a large zoned hydrothermal system. This area is of particular interest in the context of exploring such blind systems, because high-resolution geophysical data provide potential 3D information to augment the direct data from drilling. Exploring for targets associated with hidden intrusions is never going to be easy, so examples such as this, for which multiple data sets exist, are obvious priorities for expanded research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".