MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gold occurrence in the footwall of the Lappberget Deposit, Garpenberg Mine, Sweden: Implications for recovery efficiency

2024· article· en· W4400900302 on OpenAlexaff
L.D.O. Barbosa, Glacialle Tiu, Nils Jansson, Christina Wanhainen, Lena Lilja, Yousef Ghorbani

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSphaleritePyriteGalenaElectron microprobeChalcopyriteGangueGeologyEMPAPyrrhotiteMineralogySulfide mineralsArsenopyriteSulfideScanning electron microscopeGeochemistryMetallurgyMaterials scienceCopper

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• The main gold occurrence in the Lappberget deposit’s footwall: Au-dominant electrum. • Electrum is found associated with sulfides, displaying varied textures and sizes. • Sulfide lattice-bound invisible gold showed depletion in the analyzed gold carriers. • Textures and grain sizes significantly impact the liberation and recovery of Au. • Gold recovery rates are at their peak in fractions larger than 106 µm mesh. By-product metals have a significant potential to bring additional economic benefits to mines. However, a detailed characterization of their distribution is generally required to fulfill this potential and should preferably be integrated into a geometallurgical assessment. This contribution presents a detailed mineralogical and textural investigation of gold-bearing phases at the footwall of the Zn–Pb–Ag–(Cu–Au) Lappberget Deposit, Garpenberg Mine, Sweden, using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscope with energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS), electron probe microanalysis (EPMA), laser ablation-inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometer (LA-ICPMS), and bulk chemical analysis applied to drill core and Knelson concentrator samples. Gold is a by-product at the Garpenberg mine, but it is unclear how the mineralogy, occurrence, and distribution of gold-bearing phases impact on gold recoveries during mineral processing. Our results show that Au-dominant electrum is the most abundant gold-bearing phase in the footwall of the Lappberget deposit, occurring strongly associated to sulfides in a variety of textures and grain sizes. Electrum grains commonly occur within sulfide borders, as inclusions, intergrowth and overgrowths of chalcopyrite, pyrite, galena, sphalerite, and pyrrhotite. Gangue minerals may also contain disseminated electrum and inclusions. Electrum grain sizes range from ∼5 µm to 300 µm, predominantly below 100 µm. The potential of sulfide lattice-bound invisible gold in the form of solid-solution gold and colloidal gold was also investigated, showing Au depletion within the analyzed sulfide carriers. The analysis of the concentrate samples from the Knelson gravity concentrator showed 584 and 431 ppm of gold content. High degree of liberation is observed among the gold-bearing phases in the concentrate, and gold recovery is highest among fractions coarser than 106 µm mesh. Pyrite and galena are the most abundant minerals in the concentrate samples. The gold-bearing phases were categorized based on its mineralogy, texture, grain size, and association and their influence on gold processing, especially textures and grain size, which implicates its liberation in milling and recovery by the gravity separator.

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)0.000
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.342
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207