MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200180247 · doi:10.3749/canmin.2100042

Sulfide mineral chemistry and platinum-group minerals of the UG-2 chromitite in the northern limb of the Bushveld Igneous Complex, South Africa

2021· article· en· W4200180247 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Malose M. Langa, Pedro J. Jugo, Matthew I. Leybourne, Danie F. Grobler

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityArthur B. McDonald-Canadian Astroparticle Physics Research InstituteLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPentlanditePlatinum groupChromitePyrrhotiteChromititeChalcopyriteGeochemistryGeologySulfideSulfide mineralsMineralChemistryPlatinumPyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The UG-2 chromitite layer, with its elevated platinum-group element content, is a key marker horizon in the eastern and western limbs of the Bushveld Igneous Complex and the largest platinum-group element chromite-hosted resource of its kind in the world. In contrast, much less is known about its stratigraphic equivalent in the northern limb, the “UG-2 equivalent” (UG-2E) chromitite. Recent studies on chromite mineral chemistry show similarities between the UG-2 and sections of the UG-2E, but also that the UG-2E was partially contaminated by assimilation of local metasedimentary rocks. Here, we provide a detailed characterization of sulfide minerals and platinum-group minerals in a suite of samples from the UG-2E and compare the results with data obtained from a reference suite of samples from the UG-2. Results from petrographic observations, electron probe microanalysis, laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry, quantitative evaluation of materials by scanning electron microscopy, and δ34S isotopes show that: (1) sulfide minerals in the UG-2E and UG-2 consist mainly of pentlandite-chalcopyrite-pyrrhotite, but pyrrhotite is significantly more abundant in the UG-2E and almost absent in the UG-2; (2) iron contents in pentlandite from the UG-2E are significantly higher than in the UG-2; (3) platinum-group element contents within sulfide minerals are different between the two chromitites; (4) UG-2E platinum-group minerals are dominated by arsenides and bismuthotellurides, and by alloys and platinum-group element-sulfide minerals in the UG-2; (5) sulfide mineral chemistry and δ34S values indicate some crustal contamination of the UG-2E; and (6) sulfide mineral and secondary silicate mineral textures in both the UG-2E and UG-2 are indicative of minor, millimeter- to centimeter-scale, hydrothermal alteration. From our observations and results, we consider the UG-2E chromitite in the northern limb to be the equivalent to the UG-2 in the eastern and western limbs that has been contaminated by assimilation of Transvaal Supergroup footwall rocks during emplacement. The contamination resulted in UG-2E sulfide mineral elemental contents and platinum-group mineral types and abundances that are distinct from those of the UG-2 in the rest of the Bushveld.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.177
Teacher spread0.159 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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