The nature of the Cadillac – Larder Lake Fault: Implications for gold mineralization along the KerrAddison-Cheminis segment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Cadillac-Larder Lake Fault (CLLF) is a major fault system that controls the location of gold \ndeposits in the southern Abitibi greenstone belt. Over a distance of 250 km from Matachewan in \nOntario to Val d’Or in Quebec, it marks the contact between mafic-ultramafic volcanic rocks of \nthe Piché/Larder Lake group and younger metasedimentary rocks of the Hearst, Timiskaming and \nCadillac sedimentary assemblages. In the Larder Lake area, the contact between sedimentary rocks \nof the Timiskaming assemblage to the north and volcanic rocks of the Larder Lake group to the \nsouth defines the CLLF. This contact is typically sheared and deformed by two generations of \nfolds but locally, in areas of low strain, an unconformity is preserved, expressed by a pebbly \nsandstone which youngs away from the underlying ultramafic rocks and contains detrital clasts of \nthe ultramafic rocks. The sandstone stratigraphically overlies older volcanic rocks of the Larder \nLake group suggesting that the unconformable contact between the Timiskaming assemblage and \nLarder Lake group is a primary feature that was later structurally modified. The structural history \nof the CLLF and surrounding rocks began prior to the deposition of the Timiskaming assemblage \nwith the juxtaposition of the Larder Lake and Blake River groups during an early thrusting and \nimbricating D1 deformation event. Both the Larder Lake group and the Timiskaming assemblage \nwere then deformed during a D2 deformation / mineralizing event, which produced regional F2 \nfolds, a regional S2 cleavage, and ductile shearing along the contact between the Larder Lake group \nand the Timiskaming assemblage. Reactivation of this contact during and post the D2 event \nlocalized the distribution of gold deposits and formed the present day manifestation of the CLLF.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".