MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200111954 · doi:10.3749/canmin.2100056

Genesis of the Jinbaoshan PGE-(Cu)-(Ni) deposit: Distribution of chalcophile elements and platinum-group minerals

2021· article· en· W4200111954 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Yiguan Lu, C. Michael Lesher, Liqiang Yang, Matthew I. Leybourne, Wenyan He, Mingwei Yuan, Zhen Yang, Xue Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPentlanditePyrrhotitePlatinum groupPyriteGeologyChalcopyriteSulfideHypogeneGeochemistryPlatinumSupergene (geology)MineralogyChemistryCopperWeatheringMaterials scienceMetallurgyCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Jinbaoshan platinum group element-(Cu)-(Ni) deposit in southwest China is a sulfide-poor magmatic platinum-group element deposit that experienced multiple phases of post-magmatic modification. The sulfide assemblages of most magmatic Ni-Cu-platinum-group element deposits in China and elsewhere in the world are dominated by pentlandite-pyrrhotite-chalcopyrite with lesser magnetite and minor platinum-group minerals. However, Jinbaoshan is characterized by (1) hypogene violarite-pyrite 1-millerite-chalcopyrite and (2) supergene violarite-(polydymite)-pyrite 2-chalcopyrite assemblages. The platinum-group minerals are small (0.5–10 μm diameter) and include moncheite Pt(Te,Bi)2, mertieite-I Pd11(Sb,As)4, the atokite Pd3Sn – rustenburgite Pt3Sn solid solution, irarsite IrAsS, and sperrylite PtAs2 hosted mainly by violarite, silicates (primarily serpentine), and millerite. The platinum-group minerals occur in two sulfide assemblages: (1) mertieite-I-dominant (with irarsite, palladium, and Pd-alloy) in the hypogene assemblage and (2) moncheite-dominant (with irarsite, sperrylite, and atokite) in the supergene assemblage. Palladium and intermediate platinum-group elements (Os, Ir, Ru) are concentrated mainly in violarite, polydymite, and pyrite 2. Platinum is seldom hosted by base metal sulfides and occurs mainly as discrete platinum-group minerals, such as moncheite, sperrylite, and merenskyite. Violarite and polydymite in the Jinbaoshan deposit contain more Pb-Ag than pentlandite and pyrrhotite in the Great Dyke and Lac des Iles deposit. The formation of the sulfide assemblages in Jinbaoshan can be interpreted to have occurred in three stages: (1) a magmatic Fe-Ni-Cu sulfide melt crystallized Fe-Ni monosulfide and Cu-rich intermediate solid solutions, which inverted to a primary pyrrhotite-pentlandite-chalcopyrite-magnetite assemblage; (2) an early-secondary hypogene voilarite-millterite-pyrite 1-chalcopyrite assemblage formed by interaction with a lower-temperature magmatic-hydrothermal deuteric fluid; and (3) a late-secondary supergene violarite-polydymite-pyrite 2-chalcopyrite assemblage formed during weathering. Late-magmatic-hydrothermal fluids enriched the mineralization in Pb-Ag-Cd-Zn, which are incompatible in monosulfide solid solution, added Co-Pt into violarite, and expelled Pd to the margins of hypogene violarite and millerite, which caused Pd depletion in the hypogene violarite and the formation of mertieite-I. Supergene violarite inherited Pd and intermediate platinum-group elements from primary pentlandite. Thus, the unusual sulfide assemblages in the Jinbaoshan platinum-group element-(Cu)-(Ni) deposit results from multiple overprinted post-magmatic processes, but they did not significantly change the chalcophile element contents of the mineralization, which is interpreted to have formed at high magma:sulfide ratios (R factors) through interaction of crustally derived sulfide and a hybrid picritic-ferropicritic magma derived from subduction-metasomatized pyroxenitic mantle during impingement of the Emeishan plume on the Paleo-Tethyan oceanic subduction system.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian MineralogistSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207