MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tin enrichment in a highly fractionated A-type granite: Origin and mineralization potential of the Dayishan granite batholith in the Shi–Hang magmatic zone, South China

2021· article· en· W3217487028 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaojun Zhang, Wenhao Liu, David R. Lentz, WU Zhi-hua, WU Yun-hui, Xiaoping Zhang, Senlin Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBatholithGeologyGeochemistryZirconPartial meltingFractional crystallization (geology)BiotitePorphyriticMineral redox bufferPlutonPlagioclaseCrustBasaltMantle (geology)QuartzTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A-type granite intrusions in the southern Shi–Hang magmatic zone, South China, contain several world-class W–Sn deposits. The Dayishan granite batholith is located in the north of the southern Shi–Hang magmatic zone, and contains potential Sn mineralization. The batholith contains three intrusive phases, which are the Guankou, Tangshipu, and Nibantian phases. The Guankou phase consists mainly of biotite–K-feldspar granite (G1). The Tangshipu phase consists of three secondary units, which are coarse-grained biotite monzogranite (G2) that cut monzogranite (G3) and fine-grained two-mica monzogranite (G4). The Nibantian phase consists of coarse-grained two-mica monzogranite (G5). Zircon U–Pb dating indicates that the G1 to G4 granites were emplaced at ca. 160 Ma and the G5 granites formed at ca. 144 Ma. All the granites are silica-rich (SiO2 = 69.24–77.02 wt%) A2 sub-type granites, among which G1 granites are metaluminous and G2 to G5 granites are peraluminous. High εNd(t) (−6.9 to − 5.2) and zircon εHf(t) (−6.2 to − 1.9) values suggest that the parental magma was probably derived by partial melting of lower crust, which was induced by input of mantle-derived basaltic magmas. Oxygen fugacity determinations show that the G2 to G5 granitic magmas were reduced, but the G1 granitic magmas were relatively oxidized. From the G1 to G4 granites, Ba, Th, Nd, Zr, Hf, and rare earth element contents decrease, while Rb and Ta contents increase, indicative of extensive fractional crystallization of K-feldspar, plagioclase, and accessory minerals. This suggests that the G1 granites represent the least fractionated magmas, while the G2 to G4 granites are the highly fractionated products of the G1 granitic magma, with the G4 granites being the most fractionated. The G5 granites were formed during a later magmatic activity, though they show similar geochemical features with the G2 and G3 granites. Due to this continuous fractionation process, Sn was efficiently and progressively enriched in the G2 to G4 granites, as indicated by the good correlations between Sn contents and TiO2 contents, Eu/Eu*, Rb/Sr, Rb/Ba, K/Rb, Zr/Hf, Nb/Ta, and Y/Ho ratios, and TE1,3 values. Furthermore, the G2 to G4 granites crystallized at the magmatic–hydrothermal transition. These data indicate that the G2 to G4 granites underwent Sn mineralization, but the G4 granites are the best target for exploration. The G5 granites might also have Sn mineralization potential considering the similar geochemical features with G2 and G3 granites. Given the reduced nature of the magmas, the potential economic mineralization types are greisen and skarn.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207