Petrology and geochemistry of adakitic intrusions and dykes at Sarcheshmeh porphyry <scp>Cu‐Mo</scp> ± <scp>Au</scp> deposit, Iran: Insights into their source
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Sarcheshmeh porphyry copper deposit (PCD) is located in the southeast part of the arc‐related Urumieh‐Dokhtar volcano‐plutonic belt. This PCD was formed by intrusion of a Middle Miocene granodiorite to tonalite stock into the volcano‐sedimentary rocks that are mainly andesite exhibiting Early Tertiary thrusting and faulting. On the basis of geochemistry of intrusive rocks, they are calc‐alkalic and alkali‐calcic suites that are consistent with oxidized I‐type magmas. The Fe 2 O 3 /FeO ratio in the Sarcheshmeh PCD is 1 to 3, consistent with a high oxygen fugacity. The igneous rocks of Sarcheshmeh PCD belong to a mature arc, but related to a post‐collision arc setting. Considerable evidence supports adakitic affinities of the Sarcheshmeh rocks, including geochemical values of Sr > 300 ppm (ave., 594 ppm), high ratios of Sr/Y > 20 (ave., 75), La/Yb > 20 (ave., 30), and enrichment of LREE and LILE relative to HREE and HFSE. The adakites of Sarcheshmeh belong to high‐silica adakites (HSA) that can be formed by melting of subducting seawater‐altered oceanic plate, which interact with the mantle wedge then followed by slab break‐off with local transtension in the middle part of the Dehaj‐Sarduieh belt. In rocks of the region, the ratios of Th/Ce > 0.12 and Nb/Zr > 0.05 suggest that the subducting crust has a role in forming different groups of these rocks. Geotectonic discrimination diagrams are used to distinguish between normal arc and slab failure magmatic systems, including Nb versus Y, La/Sm versus Sm/Yb, La/Yb versus Gd/Yb, and Rb versus Nb + Y diagrams. The plutonic rocks of the Sarcheshmeh PCD have characteristics consistent with adakites derived via slab failure, which are obviously metallogenically favorable magmatic systems. Adakitic melts generated rapidly during sinking of a broken slab (into higher temperature mantle), buoyantly migrate through the subcontinental lithospheric mantle (SCLM), which is related to structural evolution of that SCLM with local extension or transpression.
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 | 0.002 | 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".