MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4360900278 · doi:10.3749/2200011

Recognizing Tourmaline in Mineralized Porphyry Cu Systems: Textures and Major-Element Chemistry

2023· article· en· W4360900278 on OpenAlexaffabout
C E Beckett-Brown, Andrew M. McDonald, M B McClenaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourmalineSupergroupGeologyGeochemistryBrecciaMineralization (soil science)Porphyry copper depositHydrothermal circulationMineralMineralogyChemistryPaleontologyFluid inclusions

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Samples of tourmaline supergroup minerals from seven mineralized porphyry systems (Cu, ±Au, ±Mo), including Casino (Yukon Territory, Canada), Coxheath (Nova Scotia, Canada), Donoso breccia-Los Bronces (Chile), Highland Valley Copper (British Columbia, Canada), New Afton (British Columbia, Canada), Schaft Creek (British Columbia, Canada), and Woodjam (British Columbia, Canada), were examined at a variety of scales to evaluate their relationships with mineralization. Data from paragenetic observations show that tourmaline supergroup minerals are generally early hydrothermal minerals that predate both mineralization and alteration (e.g., overgrown and crosscut by). In general, tourmaline supergroup minerals occur as sub- to euhedral crystals that are black in hand sample and can be found in a variety of mineralized settings (including breccias, veins, and disseminations) and alteration assemblages (including potassic, sodic-calcic, phyllic, propylitic, and argillic). As tourmaline supergroup minerals are physically and chemically resilient and occur throughout a given porphyry system, they are comprehensive recorders of the type and extent of various geochemical processes that exist during the complex genesis of these systems. Data from BSE imaging shows two primary zonation types: concentric and sector. These are interpreted to reflect conditions of rapid crystallization and disequilibrium. Results from SEM-EDS analyses show that most tourmaline supergroup minerals are dravite (∼80% of grains), with the remainder being primarily classified as schorl. Porphyry tourmaline supergroup minerals exhibit remarkably consistent ∼2.0 apfu Mg values (range: 0.69–2.89), with the majority of tourmaline supergroup minerals plotting along the oxy-dravite–povondraite trend, reflecting the predominance of the Al3+ ↔ Fe3+ substitution at constant Mg values. This pattern starts from the povondraite side (reflecting the oxidizing nature of early porphyry mineralizing fluids) and trends toward oxy-dravite as a porphyry system evolves, a feature that can, in turn, be interpreted to reflect relative emplacement depths. In mineralized porphyry systems, tourmaline supergroup minerals exhibit remarkably similar physical and chemical characteristics among the systems examined, suggesting that the source and geological processes must be extraordinarily similar. Unfortunately, these characteristics are not unique to porphyry systems and such observations should be integrated with additional data, such as trace element mineral chemistry, to effectively discriminate tourmaline supergroup minerals that have formed in porphyry systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.183 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and PetrologySame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207