Compositional Signatures of Gold from Different Deposit Types in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".