Contrasting Cu mineralization styles across the Dananhu Arc, Eastern Tianshan: insights from the geochronology, geochemistry, and Sr–Nd–Hf isotopes of Carboniferous arc rocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tectonic regime is an important factor controlling the formation of ore deposits, and magmatic rocks generated in different tectonic regimes are characterized by contrasting ore affinities and mineralization styles. A series of early Carboniferous volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposits occur in the western segment of the Dananhu Arc in the Central Asian Orogenic Belt. In contrast, coeval magmatic rocks in the middle segment are devoid of VMS copper mineralization but host porphyry copper deposits. However, the relationship between tectonic setting and mineralization still needs to be clarified. Herein, we synthesize the new and existing geochemical data of the Carboniferous arc rocks of the Dananhu Arc, showing diverse arc magmatism and contrasting Cu mineralization styles in the western and middle segments. Magmatic rocks in the western segment are consistent with normal island arc origin. In contrast, magmatic rocks in the middle segment of the Dananhu Arc have adakite-like affinities. The magmatic rocks in the western segment were derived from the partial melting of the juvenile lower crust triggered by slab rollback in an extension setting. In contrast, the rocks in the middle segment originated from partial melting of the subducted slab that was triggered by flat subduction. The extension setting coupled with high temperature magmatic activity induced the circulation of the hydrothermal fluids, which were critical to the development of the Xiaorequanzi VMS deposit. Copper would become progressively enriched in the fractionating melt under the high–fO2 condition, and the compressional regime caused by flat subduction reduces the ‘leakage’ of hydrothermal fluids, which are favourable for the formation of the porphyry mineralization in the middle segment. It is, therefore, evident that variations in the tectono-magmatic setting across the Dananhu Arc played an important role in generating the diversity of Cu deposit types and variable ore affinities throughout the Eastern Tianshan.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".