Petrogenesis and Ni–Cu–(PGE) prospectivity of the Mount Ayliff Complex in the Karoo Igneous Province: new insights from the Ingeli and Horseshoe lobes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mount Ayliff Complex comprises five cognate mafic–ultramafic bodies emplaced along the southern margin of the Kaapvaal Craton. This study examines the Ingeli and Horseshoe lobes and assesses their magmatic sulfide prospectivity with respect to the Insizwa lobe, which hosts massive sulfides at its Waterfall Gorge occurrence. The Ingeli lobe consists of 465 m of olivine–chromite cumulates overlain by 340 m of (olivine-)gabbronorite, while the Horseshoe lobe consists of 45 m of olivine gabbronorite overlain by 5 m of gabbro. The Ingeli lobe possesses sparsely disseminated sulfides at its mafic–ultramafic transition, whereas disseminated sulfides are present throughout the Horseshoe lobe. A petrogenetic model is proposed, where magma accumulated and fractionated nickeliferous olivine and chromite in an upper-crustal staging chamber hosted by Proterozoic basement rocks. Magma then ascended and deposited olivine–chromite cumulates at the level of the complex. Prolonged magma flux in the staging chamber facilitated the assimilation of basement rocks, triggering sulfide saturation and the crystallization of Ni-poor olivine. Contaminated magma then ascended and interacted with pre-existing cumulates, depositing sulfide melt that may have backflowed as magmatic activity waned. Basaltic magma then flowed over the ultramafic cumulates, depositing disseminated sulfides whilst undergoing closed-system fractionation. Basal depressions and underlying feeder structures are the most prospective locations for magmatic sulfide mineralization.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".