MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399249665 · doi:10.3749/2300016

<i>In Situ</i> Sulfur Isotope Geochemistry Using Secondary Ion Mass Spectrometry of Sulfides in the ABM Replacement-Style Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide Deposit, Finlayson Lake District, Yukon, Canada

2024· article· en· W4399249665 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nikola Denisová, Stephen J. Piercey, Mostafa Fayek, Ryan Sharpe

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and Petrology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSulfideSulfurGeologyGeochemistryIsotopeIn situChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ABM deposit is a bimodal-felsic, replacement-style volcanogenic massive sulfide deposit located in the Finlayson Lake district, Yukon, Canada, that is hosted by back-arc-affinity felsic volcanic rocks of the Yukon-Tanana terrane. Massive sulfide mineralization occurs as a series of stacked and stratabound lenses subparallel to the volcanic stratigraphy, surrounded by an envelope of pervasive white mica and chlorite alteration. Three major mineral assemblages occur: (1) a pyrite-sphalerite assemblage enriched in Zn-Pb-As-Sb-Ag-Au that formed at temperatures ∼200–270 °C, (2) a pyrite-chalcopyrite-magnetite-pyrrhotite assemblage enriched in Cu-Bi-Se-Co that formed at temperatures ∼300–350 °C, and (3) a chalcopyrite-pyrrhotite-pyrite stringer assemblage formed at temperatures &amp;gt;300 °C. In situ analysis of the sulfur isotopic ratios (δ34S) using secondary ion mass spectrometry has been performed on sulfides (pyrite, pyrrhotite, chalcopyrite, galena, and arsenopyrite) from samples representative of the major mineral assemblages. The δ34S results range between +4.0 and +12.5‰. The pyrite-sphalerite assemblage has an average δ34S value of +6.6 ± 1.8‰ (n = 31), whereas the higher temperature assemblages have an average δ34S value of +9.9 ± 1.4‰ (n = 59). Examination of the δ34S values of adjacent mineral pairs shows that the sulfides were formed under disequilibrium conditions and were not significantly altered or re-equilibrated by greenschist facies metamorphism that affected the ABM deposit post-volcanogenic massive sulfide formation. The observed range of δ34S values suggests that H2S derived from thermochemical sulfate reduction of seawater sulfate and/or an igneous sulfur source as the likeliest sources of S for the sulfides in the ABM deposit. Modeling of thermochemical sulfate reduction of contemporaneous Late Devonian seawater sulfate (δ34S ∼ +25‰) at temperatures estimated for the fluids forming the ABM deposit mineral assemblages (200–350 °C) shows that the reduction of 5–30% of the seawater sulfate would result in isotopic signatures similar to those observed at the ABM deposit. This model also explains the distribution of δ34S values across the mineral assemblages, as thermochemical sulfate reduction at higher temperatures (350 °C) results in more isotopically positive δ34S values. Modeling of mixing lines between thermochemical sulfate reduction at different temperatures and an igneous sulfur source suggests that leaching of magmatic/volcanic rocks also acted as a source of sulfur and was a likely a major contributor (70–95%) to the hydrothermal fluid system at the ABM deposit.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.203
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Mineralogy and PetrologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207