MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200457703 · doi:10.3749/canmin.2100043

Relationships among the Geordie Lake Cu-Pd deposit, alkaline basalt, and syenites in the Coldwell Complex, Midcontinent Rift, Canada

2021· article· en· W4200457703 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
David Good, Robert L. Linnen, Imran Meghji, Iain M. Samson, John H. McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Mineralogist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsKirkland and District HospitalUniversity of WindsorWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAugiteBasaltGeochemistryGabbroPetrogenesisIncompatible elementLileTrace elementPillow lavaRiftFractional crystallization (geology)Partial meltingVolcanic rockPlagioclaseVolcanoQuartzGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Geordie Lake Cu-Pd deposit is associated with troctolite at the base of the Geordie Lake intrusion, located near the center of the Coldwell Complex (1106.5 + 1.2 Ma). It is the only platinum group element deposit in the Midcontinent Rift associated with alkaline rocks. This study focuses on the long-standing questions regarding genetic relationships among the Geordie Lake gabbros, the Wolfcamp basalt, and the various syenites that make up the east-central portion of the Coldwell Complex. Primitive mantle-normalized trace-element patterns for the Geordie Lake intrusion are nearly flat from Th to Ce and show negative Sr, Eu, and Zr anomalies. Characteristic ratios for the Geordie Lake gabbro and troctolite include Th/Nb (0.12), La/Nb (1.1), La/Lu (150), La/Sm (6.9), Zr/Sm (18), and Gd/Yb (2.8). Trace-element patterns that are useful for determining petrogenesis for gabbros are similar to the Wolfcamp basalt and augite syenite with some key exceptions, notably the middle rare earth element and Zr abundances. Affects due to metasomatism or crustal contamination in Wolfcamp basalt and Geordie Lake gabbros and syenites are negligible. Results of Rayleigh fractionation modeling show (1) the Geordie Lake intrusion and Wolfcamp basalt are very similar but not directly related by crystallization, (2) the gabbros and basalt are not related to the syenites, (3) the lower augite syenite can be related to the upper augite syenite and amphibole quartz syenite by fractionation of a hypothetical crystal cumulate composed of orthoclase (78%), clinopyroxene (15%), olivine (1%), and titanomagnetite (6%). We conclude that the Geordie Lake intrusion, Wolfcamp basalt, and saturated syenites in the Coldwell were derived by separate partial melting events in a common mantle source. The origin of the sulfide mineralization is enigmatic because it exhibits characteristics of both magmatic and hydrothermal processes. The sulfide assemblage changes from disseminated bornite and chalcopyrite in the basal zone to pyrrhotite plus chalcopyrite in the upper zones. Sulfides occur as coarse blebs interstitial to fresh or partly altered silicates, or as very fine grains intergrown with clusters of biotite and actinolite. Primitive mantle-normalized platinum group element patterns exhibit a W-shape for Pd-Pt-Rh-Ir-Ni, indicating a relative depletion of Pt and Ir. The Cu/Pd ratios in the mineralized zones are within the range of mantle values (1000–10,000), Pd/Pt is 14–19, Pd/Rh is 91 + 37, and Pd/Ir >16,000. The Pd/Pt, Pd/Rh, and Pd/Ir are considerably higher than in the Wolfcamp basalt (<1, 17, and 75, respectively). If the sulfides are magmatic in origin, then either the Geordie Lake magma was, unlike the Wolfcamp basalt magma, depleted in Pt, Rh, and Ir, or these elements were selectively removed from the sulfide assemblage. Alternatively, Pd was enriched by late-stage hydrothermal processes. Additional work is recommended to constrain petrogenesis of the sulfides by detailed base-metal and TABS (Te, As, Bi, Sb, and Sn) element analysis.

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)0.001
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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.158 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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