MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399380867 · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49275-0

The role of CO2 in the genesis of Dabie-type porphyry molybdenum deposits

2024· article· en· W4399380867 on OpenAlexaff
Zi‐Qi Jiang, Lin-Bo Shang, Anthony E. Williams‐Jones, Xin‐Song Wang, Li Zhang, Huaiwei Ni, Ruizhong Hu, Xian‐Wu Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaWest Light Foundation of the Chinese Academy of SciencesChinese Academy of SciencesNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsMolybdenumGeologyGeochemistryBrineHydrothermal circulationChemistryInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Porphyry-type molybdenum deposits, many of which are in China, supply most of the World’s molybdenum. Of particular importance are the molybdenum deposits located in the Qinling-Dabie region that are responsible for more than half of China’s molybdenum production. A feature that distinguishes this suite of deposits from the better-known Climax and Endako sub-types of porphyry molybdenum deposits is their formation from CO2-rich magmatic-hydrothermal fluids. The role of CO2, if any, in the transport of molybdenum by these fluids, however, is poorly understood. We conducted experiments on the partitioning of molybdenum between H2O-CO2, H2O-NaCl, and H2O-NaCl-CO2 fluids and a felsic melt at 850 °C and 100 and 200 MPa. Here we show that the exsolution of separate (immiscible) brine and vapor leads to the very high brine DMo values needed for efficient extraction of Mo from the magmas forming Dabie-type porphyry molybdenum deposits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature Communications→Same topicGeological and Geochemical Analysis→French-language works237,207→