MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3213886857 · doi:10.1130/ges02086.1

Porphyry copper deposit formation in arcs: What are the odds?

2021· article· en· W3213886857 on OpenAlexaff
Jeremy P. Richards

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosphere · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPorphyry copper depositGeochemistryHydrothermal circulationBatholithMagmaPlatinum groupSulfideFluid inclusionsVolcanoTectonicsChemistryPlatinum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Arc magmas globally are H2O-Cl-S–rich and moderately oxidized (ΔFMQ = +1 to +2) relative to most other mantle-derived magmas (ΔFMQ ≤ 0). Their relatively high oxidation state limits the extent to which sulfide phases separate from the magma, which would otherwise tend to deplete the melt in chalcophile elements such as Cu (highly siderophile elements such as Au and especially platinum-group elements are depleted by even small amounts of sulfide segregation). As these magmas rise into the crust and begin to crystallize, they will reach volatile saturation, and a hydrous, saline, S-rich, moderately oxidized fluid is released, into which chalcophile and any remaining siderophile metals (as well as many other water-soluble elements) will strongly partition. This magmatic-hydrothermal fluid phase has the potential to form ore deposits (most commonly porphyry Cu ± Mo ± Au deposits) if its metal load is precipitated in economic concentrations, but there are many steps along the way that must be successfully negotiated before this can occur. This paper seeks to identify the main steps along the path from magma genesis to hydrothermal mineral precipitation that affect the chances of forming an ore deposit (defined as an economically mineable resource) and attempts to estimate the probability of achieving each step. The cumulative probability of forming a large porphyry Cu deposit at any given time in an arc magmatic system (i.e., a single batholith-linked volcanoplutonic complex) is estimated to be ~0.001%, and less than 1/10 of these deposits will be uplifted and exposed at shallow enough depths to mine economically (0.0001%). Continued uplift and erosion in active convergent tectonic regimes rapidly remove these upper-crustal deposits from the geological record, such that the probability of finding them in older arc systems decreases further with age, to the point that porphyry Cu deposits are almost nonexistent in Precambrian rocks. A key finding of this paper is that most volcanoplutonic arcs above subduction zones are prospective for porphyry ore formation, with probabilities only falling to low values at late stages of magmatic-hydrothermal fluid exsolution, focusing, and metal deposition. This is in part because of the high threshold required in terms of grade and tonnage for a deposit to be considered economic. Thus, the probability of forming a porphyry-type system in any given arc segment is relatively high, but the probability that it will be a large economic deposit is low, dictated to a large extent by mineral economics and metal prices.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.178
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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations98
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosphereSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207