Zircon and the role of magmatic petrogenesis in the formation of felsic-hosted volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits: a case study from the mid-Paleozoic Yukon-Tanana terrane, northern Canadian Cordillera
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Magmatism is a critical component in sustaining hydrothermal convection and metal transport during the formation of volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits. Previous studies of magmatic petrogenesis in VMS systems have demonstrated that ore-related volcanic rocks have distinct whole-rock geochemical and isotopic signatures (i.e., high HFSE, REE, Th, εHf-Nd, zircon saturation T) relative to barren volcanic rocks, which supports models of elevated crustal heat flow during periods of ore deposition; however, the petrologic characteristics and intrinsic parameters (e.g., T, f O 2 ) related to these magmatic events in VMS districts remain poorly understood. Arc–back-arc assemblages from the mid-Paleozoic Yukon-Tanana terrane are well-characterized and include the Finlayson Lake VMS district, which is host to several felsic-hosted deposits (e.g., Kudz Ze Kayah, GP4F, Wolverine) that were generated in a peri-Laurentian continental back-arc tectonic setting. In this study, zircon from back-arc and coeval arc rocks in the Yukon-Tanana terrane was used as a proxy for primary magma formation conditions that generated VMS-proximal and VMS-distal stratigraphy. Our results indicate that zircon grains in VMS-proximal environments have unique textural, geochemical, and isotopic characteristics (e.g., low-aspect ratios, greater abundance of zircon-phosphate intergrowths, Th/U > 1, Zr/Hf > 80, T zrc > 780 °C, εHf i > –7) that are clearly distinguished from zircon in VMS-distal rocks in both the back-arc and arc settings (Th/U < 1, Zr/Hf < 80, T zrc < 780 °C, εHf i < –7). These signatures correlate to VMS-proximal magmas that were hotter, less fractionated, and contained greater juvenile melt contributions compared to VMS-distal magmas and reflect a series of high-flux magmatic events that directly correspond to the early tectonic development of Yukon-Tanana terrane. Moreover, this study underscores the importance of mineral-scale petrology, geochemistry, and geochronology in defining the primary magmatic conditions that generated VMS-related felsic rocks and highlights the utility of zircon as a prospectivity tool in both grassroots and brownfields VMS 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".