MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109959397 · doi:10.18268/bsgm2020v72n3a110520

The Miocene Tatatila–Las Minas IOCG skarn deposits (Veracruz) as a result of adakitic magmatism in the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt

2020· article· en· W3109959397 on OpenAlexaff
Edith Fuentes-Guzmán, Eduardo Gonzáléz-Partida, Antoni Camprubí, Geovanny Hernández-Avilés, Janet Gabites, Alexander Iriondo, Giovanni Ruggieri, Margarita López‐Martínez

Bibliographic record

VenueBoletín de la Sociedad Geológica Mexicana · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyZirconSkarnGeochemistryVolcanic beltMagmatismVolcanic rockIron oxide copper gold ore depositsPaleontologyVolcanoTectonicsFluid inclusionsQuartz

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Cu- and Au-rich Tatatila–Las Minas IOCG skarn deposits in Veracruz (central-east Mexico) are circumscribed to the earliest stages of the Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (TMVB) and stand for a metallogenic province directly linked to its tectonomagmatic dynamics. This is the first well-documented case for such metallogenic province. These deposits were formed as skarns between rocks of the Mesozoic carbonate series and Miocene intermediate to acid hypabyssal rocks. New U-Pb zircon and 40Ar/39Ar ages provide evidence for four epochs of magmatic activity in the area: (1) early Permian (Artinskian), in association with the Paleozoic basement, (2) late Oligocene to early Miocene suite of pre-TMVB intrusive rocks, (3) middle to late Miocene suite of early TMVB-related intrusive rocks, and (4) Pliocene intrusive and extrusive rocks of the TMVB, possibly associated with the Los Humeros post-caldera stage. The obtained ages range between 24.60 ± 1.10 and 19.04 ± 0.69 Ma for stage 2, and between 16.34 ± 0.20 and 13.92 ± 0.22 Ma for stage 3. Stage 2 corresponds to a magmatic stage unheard of in the area, until this study. Only stage 3 rocks are associated with the IOCG skarn mineralization, with retrograde stages dated at 12.44 ± 0.09 (chromian muscovite, phyllic association) and 12.18 ± 0.21 Ma (zircon, potassic association). Therefore, the ages of stage-3 intrusive rocks are interpreted to date the formation of the prograde skarn associations (mostly ~15.4 to <14 Ma). The petrogenetic affinity of stage-2 and stage-3 rocks is about the same—the main difference has to do with higher Y and Yb contents in stage-3 rocks (although no affinity with within-plate granites was found), which is suggestive of an interaction of their parental magmas with alkaline magmas that most likely belong to the conterminous and contemporaneous Eastern Mexico Alkaline Province. Petrological indicators (elemental and isotopic) in Cenozoic rocks consistently point to intermediate to acid, metaluminous, I- and S-type rocks that were emplaced in a subduction-related continental arc, within the medium- to high-potassium calc-alkaline series, with high-silica adakitic signatures due associated to deep-sourced magmas that underwent crustal contamination to some degree. The various possible sources for the magmas with adakitic signature in this context can be narrowed down to two of them that are not mutually exclusive: adakitic derived from subducted slab melting and melting-assimilation-storage-homogenization (MASH)-derived adakites. Both sources are, in principle, capable of generating magmas that would eventually produce magmatic-hydrothermal mineralizing systems with an associated variety of ore deposit types, including IOCG. Also, both possible sources for adakites are compatible with the renewed steepening of the subducted slab after a period of flat subduction, for the earliest stage in the evolution of the TMVB.

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)0.000
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBoletín de la Sociedad Geológica MexicanaSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207