Fluid sources and mineralizing processes in greenstone belts: a stable isotope (O, H) comparison between the weakly mineralized Moly-Desgagné–Guercheville system and Val-d’Or orogenic gold deposits, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In orogenic gold systems, the source of the fluids and the processes leading to mobilization, transport, and deposition of gold remain debated. Most studies focus on endowed rather than on gold-poor orogenic systems to unravel the “key” parameters of gold mineralizing processes. Here, we present stable isotope (O, H) data from the Moly-Desgagné–Guercheville fault system (gold-free to low gold endowment) in the Chibougamau area, Abitibi greenstone belt, Canada. The gold-free Moly-Desgagné showing and nearby poorly endowed Hazeur showing and Monster Lake deposit share similar features typical of orogenic systems. The stable isotope compositions of tourmaline and quartz from the Moly-Desgagné–Guercheville fault system also display similar characteristics, such as (1) temperature of vein formation of 345 ± 86 °C (1σ); (2) fluid mixing between an upper crustal reservoir (low T – high δD – low δ18O) and a metamorphic water reservoir (high T – low δD – high δ18O); and (3) positive δDfluid values consistent with multiple boiling-condensation cycles related to fault-valve processes. These characteristics are similar to those from the gold-endowed Val-d’Or vein field. The difference in gold endowment between the Moly-Desgagné–Guercheville and Val-d’Or vein fields may be related to the nature of the fault system (i.e., terrane-bounding or “intragreenstone belt”) and the volume and (or) composition (i.e., gold, its ligands, CO2) of the fluid source rocks.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".