MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385811892 · doi:10.3390/min13081072

Compositional Signatures of Gold from Different Deposit Types in British Columbia, Canada

2023· article· en· W4385811892 on OpenAlexaffabout
R. J. Chapman, James Kenneth Mortensen, Rory Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryInclusion (mineral)MineralGold oreMineralogyMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A study of both in situ and detrital gold from different deposit types in British Columbia was undertaken to establish deposit-specific compositional characteristics in terms of alloy composition and suites of mineral inclusions. The study is based on 11,840 particles from 160 localities in which nine gold deposit types are represented, although there is a strong bias towards gold of orogenic, low-sulphidation epithermal, and alkalic porphyry origin. In general, Ag values in gold alloys are not a powerful discriminator for deposit type, but minor metals may prove useful where detectable, e.g., Cu in gold from ultramafic associations and Pd and Hg in gold from alkalic porphyry systems. The characterization of inclusion suites is far more illuminating, as they correlate strongly with the mineralogy of auriferous ores from different deposit types. This outcome has confirmed the validity of designing an indicator methodology based on inclusion suites and has permitted the prediction of inclusion suites for gold from other deposit types where data are more scarce. The compositional templates generated in the study were applied to identify the source deposit type(s) of gold from 41 localities (a total of 2916 detrital gold particles) where gold genesis was previously unknown.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.181 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207