Reconnaissance investigation of magnetite trace-element compositions from the New Afton Cu-Au deposit, British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abundant magnetite occurs sporadically in variable textural settings within the New Afton Cu-Au porphyry deposit. A study to test the utility of magnetic anomalies as an exploration vector was conducted by analyzing magnetite in drill core samples from a variety of rock types and alteration facies. Magnetite samples from various settings (i.e. disseminated, isolated, vein, breccia grains) were analyzed by a laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometer for iron and trace elements. New Afton magnetite compositions were compared to previously defined compositional fingerprints of porphyry, iron oxide copper gold, skarn, polymetallic vein, and layered intrusion deposit types. On multi-element plots using bulk continental crust as the normalizing factor, most New Afton magnetite analyses plot within the high-temperature hydrothermal magnetite field, although most samples have elevated V and 6 of 19 samples have notably higher W than other deposit types. A hydrothermal origin is supported by a Ti versus Ni-Cr plot, which discriminates hydrothermal from magmatic magnetite; however, a Ti versus V plot suggests mainly magmatic compositions. Copper is generally depleted relative to bulk crust; gold and platinum values are near their detection limits. Veins, one of the main magnetite habits, define brittle fracture patterns, and trace-element characteristics support formation by pulses of oxidized, high-temperature hydrothermal fluid. The texture and composition of the samples suggest that magnetite crystallized from late magmatic fluids that drove porphyry mineralization.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".