Reconnaissance-scale till survey in the New Liskeard-Temagami region, Ontario: kimberlite indicator minerals and geochemistry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This report describes results of a reconnaissance-scale kimberlite indicator mineral (KIM) till survey in the area south of the known Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field, between New Liskeard and Marten River. The survey provides information on the regional background content of KIM in till, the nature of KIM signatures in till just down-ice of known kimberlites, and the distribution of KIM anomalies that warrant further investigation. Three phases of flow are associated with erosion, transportation and deposition of till in the region. The main carriers of glacial debris, however, were the two oldest ice flows to the southwest and south. A large dispersal train of Paleozoic limestone derived from upper Lake Timiskaming trends south-southwest across the area, but has been truncated in its proximal part (Latchford area) by the last southeast ice flow indicating that in this area, southeast ice flow was a major carrier of debris. These situations have to be taken into consideration in the interpretation of dispersal trains formed by the three major ice flows. Mg-ilmenite is the most abundant and widespread KIM in the till in the study area. Chromite occurs in approximately the same till samples that contain Mg-ilmenite, but is generally present in lower abundances. Pyrope in till is approximately half as abundant as Mg-ilmenite. Cr-diopside is similar in abundance to pyrope and is present in almost every sample. Elevated Cr-diopside abundances that are not accompanied by other KIMs likely are not from kimberlite. Anomalous concentrations of kimberlite indicator minerals in till occur: on the Red Squirrel Road; near Temagami; along Highway 11 in the central part of the study area; on the east side of Lake Timiskaming; and on the Rabbit Lake forest access road. Some of these anomalies coincide with anomalies identified by the OGS in their recent stream sediment survey (Allan, 2001). Additional till sampling combined with geophysics should be conducted to determine the extent of the KIM anomalies and trace them to their bedrock source, with a sample spacing that is much smaller (<500 m) than used in this reconnaissance survey.
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 | 0.002 | 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".