Reply to “Porphyry-related high-sulfidation mineralization early in Central American Arc development: Cerro Quema deposit, Azuero Peninsula, Panama” by Corral (2021)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dear Editor, we thank Corral (2020) for his anticipated interest in our paper on the timing of the porphyry-related high-sulfidation epithermal mineralization at Cerro Quema in the Azuero peninsula of southwestern Panama. Our study, based on three Re-Os ages for molybdenite intimately associated with Cu-bearing sulfide minerals from the hypogene roots of the La Pava center (Figure 1), shows that the main event of high-sulfidation Cu mineralization took place during the earliest Maastrichtian at ~71 Ma. The reported ages, together with the geologic relationships described in our paper (Perelló et al., 2020), plus a series of regional geologic, structural, petrochemical, and geotectonic considerations, not only precisely date the porphyry-related nature of the Cerro Quema high-sulfidation mineralization, but are also significant in that they confirm the rapid evolution of the earliest stages of the Central American Arc – from subduction initiation at 75-73 Ma to arc stability and maturation at 71 Ma (e.g., Buchs et al., 2011a and references therein) – and place the mineralization in a regional geodynamic setting. Irrespective of the regional geologic arguments reiterated by Corral (2020) in support of his previous genetic interpretation (e.g., Corral et al., 2016) and to invalidate our conclusions, Corral´s real concern is the reliability of our molybdenite ages, which are much older than his preferred age of mineralization for Cerro Quema. We believe that many of the points raised by Corral (2020), including the regional and local geologic backgrounds of the deposit and the dated samples, were properly addressed in Perelló et al. (2020), and that it would be redundant to repeat them here. Additional petrochemical evidence in support can be found in Whattam and Stern (2015, 2020) and Whatam (2018).
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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".