Exhuming and Preserving Epizonal Orogenic Au‐Sb Deposits in Rapidly Uplifting Orogenic Settings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Epizonal orogenic Au‐Sb deposits are generally Phanerozoic in age, possibly as a consequence of erosion that can entirely remove older mineral deposits in rapidly uplifting orogenic setting. Quantifying post‐mineralization thermotectonic processes is essential for documenting the exhumation and preservation of epizonal deposits, which in turn is critical for constraining regional deformation. This study focuses on the giant Zaozigou deposit, and documents cooling rates using amphibole and biotite Ar‐Ar, zircon U‐Th/He, and apatite fission track dating. Six cooling phases are identified, including Early to Middle Triassic very rapid cooling, Late Triassic rapid cooling, Early Jurassic slow cooling, Middle to Late Jurassic rapid cooling, Cretaceous to Oligocene slow cooling, and Miocene to present rapid cooling. Initial cooling corresponds to thermal exchange between magmatic rocks and wall rocks. Phases two through five are related to a sequence of post‐mineralization compressional, strike‐slip, compressional, and extensional events, pointing to multi‐phase tectonic evolution of the Qinling Orogen since the Late Triassic. Late exhumation is probably related to lateral growth of the Tibetan Plateau and/or to rapid erosion induced by intensification of the Asian monsoon. In total, ∼6.3 km of rock was removed post‐mineralization. We conclude that Cretaceous to Oligocene extension retarded the continuous erosion and thus played an important role in the preservation of Zaozigou. Combined with known orogenic processes, our results demonstrate that a long‐lived extension is a favorable tectonic environment for the preservation of epizonal orogenic Au‐Sb deposits in rapidly uplifting orogenic setting.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".