MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402424979 · doi:10.1080/08120099.2024.2379834

A review of lithogeochemical dispersion haloes of LCT pegmatites, and their application to rare metal exploration, with special reference to lithium in an Australian context

2024· review· en· W4402424979 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus T. Sweetapple, P. J. Vanstone, Gregory R. Lumpkin, P. L. F. Collins

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Earth Sciences · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegmatiteContext (archaeology)GeologyLithium (medication)Dispersion (optics)GeochemistryMineralogyGeophysicsPhysicsOpticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of lithogeochemical dispersion haloes of rare metal pegmatites, particularly those of economic interest, are known to display strong development of haloes of rare alkali elements (Li–Rb–Cs), in particular lithium, into country rocks. The use of these haloes in exploration for pegmatites has had apparently little application in an Australian context, where it has the potential to assist exploration undercover by expanding the known ‘footprint’ of these mineral systems. Dispersion haloes have two parts: proximal (typically of centimetres to metres thickness), characterised by visible changes to mineralogy relating to metasomatism, and distal, where there are typically cryptic geochemical changes, but no changes in host mineralogy. Collation of global data have shown that the lithogeochemical haloes of large rare metal pegmatites can extend laterally at least 200 m, with a few localities giving indications extending several kilometres along strike. Lithium displays the largest haloes, with Rb and Cs typically being less extensive; other elements are mostly localised close to the pegmatite wallrock interface. These haloes are more extensive in mafic host rocks than other host-rock types. Mafic host rocks also provide the best geochemical contrast for rare alkali elements. Of the 22 datasets reviewed here, many are simply ‘proof of concept’ studies based on single sample lines and may not have had their outer limits defined. The actual distribution of these haloes is likely to be controlled by anisotropies that control host-rock permeability in the host units, with fluids emanating from the rare metal pegmatites being commonly channelled into structures or exploiting foliation or bedding. Regional-scale structures are likely to control kilometre-scale haloes. Sheet silicates and amphiboles are the most important hosts for these elements, which consequently accumulate in units or structures rich in these minerals. The actual distributions of these elements are, in most cases, likely to be irregular and complex anomalies of varying three-dimensional shapes, and thus ‘vectoring’ based on systematic changes in concentration away from a source should be treated with caution. It is important to note that given anomaly types do not indicate the presence of particular minerals, such as spodumene. The presence of these haloes in Australian Archean cratons is supported by dispersion haloes in saprolite and saprock units in deep weathering profiles and is potentially applicable to lag sampling over near fresh or unweathered host-rock units in exposed terranes.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.858

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Earth SciencesSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207