Determining the Lifespan of Hydrothermal Systems Using Thermochronology and Thermal Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The drive toward lower carbon emissions has led to a rise in global geothermal exploration. Hot springs are key exploration targets as they reflect active advection of thermal fluids derived from heating of meteoric waters circulating through the upper crust. However, establishing the timing of hot spring formation and the longevity of systems remain key knowledge gaps in our understanding of geothermal systems, such as how and when hydrogeologic conditions enable deep groundwater circulation to initiate. In this study, we demonstrate that a combination of multiple low‐temperature thermochronometers and finite element modeling can be used to determine the lifespan of the Canoe River Hot Springs flow system, British Columbia, Canada. Rocks adjacent to the hot spring show evidence of reheating because of thermal fluids, an effect absent in more distant samples. Hydrothermal modeling of both constant and episodic flow scenarios over different timescales highlights that the hot spring likely began flowing between 4 and 6 Ma. This timing of flow onset implies the hot spring’s formation may be linked to partial melting at the base of the crust, associated with nearby volcanic activity that has increased heat flow across the region in the late Cenozoic. These results have significant implications for the exploration of geothermal energy systems and for understanding the conditions required to form hot springs across British Columbia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".