MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981830740 · doi:10.4095/295789

The Otish Basin: basin evolution and formation of the Camie River deposit, Quebec

2015· report· en· W2981830740 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Dejan Milidragovic, M Lesbros-Piat-Desvial, J J King, Georges Beaudoin, Margret Hamilton, Robert A. Creaser

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological formations and processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural basinGeologyGeochemistryHydrology (agriculture)PaleontologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Otish Basin of central Quebec hosts over thirty uranium prospects, including the Camie River prospect that is located near the unconformable contact between the graphite-bearing, metamorphic basement of Archean age and the overlying basinal sedimentary rocks of the Otish Supergroup. The maximum age of the basin, constrained by the age of the unconformably-underlying Mistassini dyke swarm, is 2515 } 3 Ma. Following the deposition of the Otish Supergroup, the basin was intruded by the Otish Gabbros, a suite of olivine-tholeiitic dykes and sills of near-liquid compositions (Group 1) and cumulate rocks (Group 2). Uranium-lead zircon ages from the Otish Gabbros indicate the minimum age of the Otish Basin is ca. 2.17 Ga. The Otish Basin was also intruded by the Matoush dyke, interpreted to be younger than the Otish Gabbros. The least altered samples of the Matoush dyke have mineralogy and trace element systematics, such as highly fractionated REE patterns, similar to lamprophyric rocks and are distinct from the tholeiitic to weakly trace element-enriched Otish Gabbros. This, therefore, indicates that the Otish Basin was affected by at least two igneous events. The uranium mineralization formed after the peak diagenetic alteration of the Otish Supergroup. During peak diagenetic conditions, early albitic sandstone cement was largely replaced by K-feldspar. The feldspathic cement was subsequently partially replaced by a green muscovite alteration. The increase in Na2O concentrations of the feldpsathiccemented sandstones towards the base of the sedimentary sequence is noteworthy. Uraninite and brannerite are the principal uranium minerals at the Camie River prospect. Molybdenite grains, intergrown with uraninite, yield a Re-Os model age of 1724 } 4. 9 Ma that is indistinguishable from the previously published uraninite ages. The age of mineralization is significantly younger than the age of the Otish Gabbros, indicating that the uranium mineralization postdates sedimentation by ?450 m.y. The overlapping Sm-Nd isotopic ages from Otish Gabbros suggest the main uranium mineralization was locally accompanied by resetting of the Sm-Nd system and LREE mobility in the gabbros. The age of mineralization in the Otish Basin is similar to the age of polymetallic mineralization of the Huronian Supergroup, suggesting the ca. 1.7 Ga hydrothermal activity may have been a regional phenomenon affecting the southern Superior Province.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological formations and processesFrench-language works237,207