Trace Element Characteristics of Tourmaline in Porphyry Cu Systems: Development and Application To Discrimination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Samples of tourmaline supergroup minerals from seven mineralized porphyry systems (Cu ±Au, ±Mo) that include Casino (Yukon, Canada), Coxheath (Nova Scotia, Canada), Donoso breccia (Chile), Highland Valley Copper (British Columbia, Canada), New Afton (British Columbia, Canada), Schaft Creek (British Columbia, Canada), and Woodjam (British Columbia, Canada) were examined to characterize their trace element signatures and to evaluate discriminating variables that distinguish them from tourmaline supergroup minerals forming in other environments. Trace element analyses, conducted via LA-ICP-MS, reveal striking similarities in trace element character among the mineralized environments examined in contrast to those considered to be barren. Key concentrations of elements (Sr, Pb, Zn, Cu, and Ga) and select element ratios (Sr/Pb and Zn/Cu) are useful discriminators. These discriminators are presented and compared to that of tourmaline supergroup minerals forming in other geologic environments. The tourmaline supergroup minerals from porphyry systems are characterized by high Sr/Pb values (avg: 297) and relatively low Zn/Cu (avg: 4.8) values. A ternary plot of Sr/Pb–Zn/Cu–Ga is effective in distinguishing porphyry-related tourmaline supergroup minerals. Compared to porphyry grains, tourmaline supergroup minerals derived from felsic pegmatites have lower Sr/Pb values (avg: 2.91) and higher Zn/Cu values (avg: 472); those from orogenic Au deposits have high Sr/Pb (avg: 193) similar to porphyries but intermediate Zn/Cu (avg: 223) and lower Ga (avg: 43 ppm); and those considered metamorphic (greenschist to amphibolite) form in the center of the ternary. An effective approach for discrimination was developed utilizing an understanding of both intrinsic and extrinsic controls. More broadly, this work has implications for using tourmaline supergroup minerals recovered from surficial sediments to identify prospective areas for further porphyry exploration.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".