Genesis of the Island Gold Deposit, Ontario, Canada: Implications for Gold Mineralization in the Wawa Subprovince of the Superior Province
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Island Gold deposit represents an uncommon example of known economic mineralization in the Wawa subprovince, which has been tectonically correlated with the neighboring Abitibi subprovince that hosts worldclass orogenic gold deposits. The Island Gold deposit is hosted in dacite, gabbro, and tonalite-trondhjemite, and accompanied D2 deformation. The main ore zone dips steeply toward the south and consists of early shear-hosted laminated quartz veins and late extensional veinlets; both vein sets host gold mineralization. A set of shallowly dipping extensional quartz veins in the Goudreau zone located north of the main ore zones also host economic gold mineralization. Multiple sulfur isotope analysis of pyrite associated with gold-bearing alteration envelopes in the main ore zone indicates no involvement of sulfur affected by mass-independent fractionation, which rules out sulfur (± gold) sourced from nearby banded iron formation or metasedimentary material. However, a single analysis of pyrite from an auriferous Goudreau zone vein indicates the involvement of sulfur that underwent mass-independent fractionation, which suggests a different fluid source. Zircon U-Pb geochronology of pre- and postmineralization rock samples at Island Gold restricts the timing of mineralization to between ca. 2724 and 2672 Ma. Including previous results of detrital zircon geochronology, gold mineralization occurred between ca. 2680 and 2672 Ma. This age range is similar to the timing of gold mineralization at the Hemlo deposit in the Wawa subprovince but is slightly older than the bulk of orogenic gold mineralization in the neighboring southern part of the Abitibi subprovince. Multiple sulfur isotopes indicate that gold mineralization at Island Gold results from fluids of igneous affinity associated with second-generation transpressional deformation. The ore-controlling structures were developed in bends in regional shear zones focused around relatively competent premineralization plutons.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".