MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3138571000 · doi:10.5382/rev.21.04

Chapter 4: Internal and External Deformation and Modification of Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposits

2020· book-chapter· en· W3138571000 on OpenAlexaff
Bruno Lafrance, H. L. Gibson, Margaret S. Stewart

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulfideGeologyDeformation (meteorology)GeochemistryMaterials scienceMetallurgyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Ancient volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits formed in rifted arc, back-arc, and other extensional geodynamic environments and were deformed during later convergent collisional and/or accretionary events. Primary features of deposits influenced the development of tectonic structures. Except for pyrite, common sulfides in VMS deposits are much weaker than their volcanic host rocks. During deformation, strain is taken by the weak sericitic and chloritic alteration envelope surrounding the deposits and by the sulfide bodies themselves, which act as shear zones, undergo hinge thickening and limb attenuation during regional folding, and are deformed into elongate bodies parallel to regional fold hinges and stretching lineations. A tectonic foliation forms as a sulfide banding in the interior of VMS lenses due to shearing and flattening of primary textural and compositional heterogeneities and as a banded silicate-sulfide tectonic foliation along the margins of the VMS lenses due to transposition and shearing of primary silicate (exhalites)-sulfide layers. Other characteristic structures, such as cusps, piercement cusps, piercement veins, and durchbewegung structures (sulfide breccias), formed as a result of the strong competency contrast between the massive sulfide deposits and their host volcanic rocks. Some features of VMS deposits may have both primary and tectonic components, requiring careful mapping of volcanic lithofacies and primary and tectonic structures to assess the nature of these features. One example is the vertical stacking of VMS lenses. The stacking may be primary, due to the rapid burial of lenses by volcanic or sedimentary deposits as the upward flow of hydrothermal fluids continued and precipitated new lenses above the earlier formed lenses. Or it may be tectonic, due to thrusting or isoclinal folding and transposition of the VMS lenses. Metal zoning (Cu/Cu + Zn), produced by zone refining at the seafloor or subseafloor, is refractory to deformation and metamorphism and can be used to delineate hydrothermal fluid upflow zones and, together with stratigraphic mapping, determine if the stacking is primary, tectonic, or both. Similarly, the elongation of VMS lenses may have a primary component due to the deposition and coalescence of sulfide lenses along linear synvolcanic faults or fissures, as well as a tectonic component due to mechanical remobilization of sulfides parallel to linear structural features in the host volcanic rocks. Structural mapping of VMS deposits is hampered by low-temperature recrystallization of sulfides, which masks the effects of deformation, by discontinuous and abrupt lithofacies changes in the volcanic host rocks, and by the weak development of tectonic fabrics and strong strain partitioning in volcanic rocks. To mitigate these issues, mapping of volcanic lithofacies should be done concurrently with structural mapping to delineate repeated stratigraphic panels across reactivated faults and to identify, in the absence of well-developed fabrics, regional folds characterized by abrupt changes in strata orientation from limbs to hinge. Where well-layered sedimentary rocks are intercalated with volcanic rocks, structures should be mapped in the sedimentary rocks and then correlated with those in volcanic rocks to alleviate difficulties in mapping structures in volcanic rocks and defining the sequence of deformation events that affected the volcanic rocks and their VMS deposits.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→