Zinc, sulfur and cadmium isotopes and Zn/Cd ratios as indicators of the origin of the supergiant Broken Hill Pb–Zn–Ag deposit and other Broken Hill-type deposits, New South Wales, Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Various genetic models have been proposed for the supergiant Proterozoic Broken Hill Pb–Zn–Ag deposit largely based on geological and geochronological evidence. Here we present Zn, Cd and S isotope compositions as well as Zn/Cd ratios of sphalerite from Broken Hill and minor Broken Hill-type deposits (Australia) to help constrain these models but focus on syngenetic and magmatic–hydrothermal processes, since epigenetic models can be rejected because the orebodies were deformed and metamorphosed by the Olarian Orogeny. Values of δ 34 S VCDT , δ 66 Zn AA-ETH and δ 114 Cd NIST SRM 3108 for sphalerite from Broken Hill range from +0.27 to +4.73 ‰, −1.15 to +0.46 ‰ and −0.48 to +0.01 ‰, respectively, while those for the smaller Broken Hill-type deposits range from −5.11 to +1.28 ‰, −0.97 to +0.10 ‰ and −1.02 to +2.59 ‰, respectively. By combining published S isotope data of sulfides from the Broken Hill district with those obtained here, the sources of sulfur via thermochemical sulfate reduction, bacterial sulfate reduction and a magmatic origin cannot be distinguished. However, when the S isotope compositions are considered along with the broad range of Cd and Zn isotope data for sphalerite, which are among the lightest and heaviest yet reported for a sulfide deposit, the isotopic datasets are consistent with low-temperature biogenic processes associated with syngenetic deposition of sulfides. Cadmium isotope compositions when coupled with Zn/Cd ratios of sphalerite have previously been used to classify Pb–Zn deposits, including low-temperature, high-temperature and exhalative ores. However, the Zn/Cd ratios of sphalerite from Broken Hill cannot be used for such classification purposes.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".