Geochemical evidence for a magmatic contribution to the metal budget of the Windy Craggy Cu-Co(±Zn) volcanogenic massive-sulfide deposit, northwestern British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Volcanogenic massive-sulfide (VMS) deposits may have had metal contributions from magmatic degassing and leaching of footwall rocks. The Windy Craggy Cu-Co-Zn VMS deposit in northwestern British Columbia may include magmatic contributions, based on laser-ablation inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (LA-ICP-MS) of fluid inclusions (enriched in Sb, Sn, and Bi) and lithogeochemistry. Sulfide-mineral trace-element abundances in the massive-sulfide orebody, underlying stockwork zone, gold zone, and altered and unaltered mafic rock and argillite were analyzed by LA-ICP-MS. Elevated Au, W, As, Bi, Sb, Se, Te, Tl, Ag, Co, and Mo contents occur within the gold and/or stockwork zones. Increasing 'magmatic metals' with increasing Co/Ni values suggest direct magmatic contribution to the deposit. Covariation of Co with these so-called 'magmatic elements' indicates that it, too, may be of magmatic origin, sourced via fluids exsolved from a crystallizing magma; however, evidence from the composition of rocks and sulfide minerals from Windy Craggy and other VMS deposits suggests that there is probably no meaningful distinction between hydrothermal leaching and direct magmatic contributions and that most - if not all - fluids that form VMS deposits should be termed 'magmatic-hydrothermal'.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".