MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404741359 · doi:10.1130/b37696.1

Formation of a granite-related Sn-Pb-Zn-(Ag) deposit from three discrete mineralization events around a common magmatic-hydrothermal center over a span of ~45 million years at Changpu, eastern Guangdong, South China

2024· article· en· W4404741359 on OpenAlexaff
Qing-He Yan, Guoxiang Chi, He Wang, Bingbing Liu, Wei Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society of America Bulletin · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyHydrothermal circulationMineralization (soil science)GeochemistryMining engineeringMineralogySeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Magmatic-hydrothermal Sn-(W) mineralization is commonly associated with Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization, forming Sn-polymetallic deposits that typically exhibit a zonation from proximal Sn-(W) to distal Pb-Zn-Ag, alongside a paragenetic sequence from early Sn-(W) to late Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization. Traditional models generally propose that these deposits formed from a single magmatic-hydrothermal event characterized by continuously decreasing temperatures. However, our study of the Changpu Sn-Pb-Zn-(Ag) deposit in eastern Guangdong, South China, reveals a more intricate mineralization history. There, metal zonation results from three distinct mineralization events occurring over a prolonged period. The Sn orebodies at Changpu occur as cassiterite–tourmaline–quartz–(muscovite) veins and breccia zones in the central part of the deposit, whereas the Pb-Zn-Ag orebodies occur mainly as sulfide-(cassiterite) veins peripheral to the Sn orebodies. The hydrothermal processes related to mineralization are divided into three periods, and each corresponds to a unique mineralization event. Period 1 is characterized by tourmalinization with minor Sn mineralization, period 2 represents the main Sn mineralization, and period 3 features predominant Pb-Zn-Ag mineralization. Different isotopic dating methods were used to obtain the ages of these mineralization periods: ca. 150 Ma for period 1 (U-Pb dating of cassiterite and Ar-Ar dating of fluid inclusions in quartz), ca. 130 Ma for period 2 (U-Pb dating of cassiterite), and ca. 105 Ma for period 3 (Ar-Ar dating of muscovite). These ages overlap with the reported zircon U-Pb ages for quartz porphyry dike (144.1 ± 1.2 Ma) and rhyolite (153.9 ± 1.3 Ma) in the deposit area. Fluid inclusions in cassiterite and quartz are of the H2O-CO2-CH4-NaCl compositional system in all of the periods and show a decrease in temperature and salinity from the early to late stages within each period. The H isotopes of fluid inclusions in cassiterite and quartz fall within the field of magmatic water, and the O isotopes of the ore-forming fluids calculated from the O isotopes of cassiterite and quartz are slightly shifted away from the field of magmatic water toward meteoric water. These geochronological and isotopic data, together with fluid pressures calculated from fluid inclusion data, suggest that three distinct magmatic-hydrothermal Sn-Pb-Zn mineralization events occurred at the same location over ~45 m.y., resulting in the observed metal zonation due to the evolution of the magmatic system and continuous surface erosion. The magmas responsible for the three mineralization events are linked via a deep fault to a crustal source region, where discrete partial melting processes are related to episodic slab-foundering or slab rollback of the paleo-Pacific plate during the Mesozoic in South China. This proposed model has significant implications for mineral exploration at depth within the study area and offers valuable insights for areas with similar geological contexts globally.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society of America BulletinSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207