MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405826897 · doi:10.5382/econgeo.5119

Remnants of a 1.55 Ga Hybrid Between Metasomatic Iron Alkali-Calcic and Unconformity-Related Uranium Environments in the Kiggavik Region, Nunavut, Canada

2024· article· en· W4405826897 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ian Burron, Mostafa Fayek, Julie J. Brown, David Quirt

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissioniNano Medical (Canada)University of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnconformityGeologyMetasomatismUraniumGeochemistryUranium oreSedimentary rockMantle (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Uranium mineralization in the Kiggavik, Bong, End, and Andrew Lake deposits (Thelon region, Nunavut) was preceded by host-rock albitization, brecciation, silicification, and hematization. Uranium mineralization comprises three stages, the first stage having three substages: (1) front-style (U1a; 1594 ± 95 Ma), (2) euhedral disseminated (U1b; 1553 ± 16 Ma), and (3) polymetallic and monometallic vein-hosted (U1c; 1553 ± 16 Ma). Uraninite, coffinite, and local brannerite mineralization is associated with visually and chemically apparent dehematization and iron removal (bleaching), which overprints earlier styles of alteration. Some U1 and U2 minerals record isotopic resetting/U remobilization events at 1440 ± 21, 1417 ± 17, 1276.4 ± 8.7, 1249 ± 33, 937 ± 24, and 274 ± 69 Ma. Paragenetically late U3 minerals associated with orange goethite-bearing alteration have very low lead contents, indicating recent (<1 Ma) formation or isotopic resetting. Although geochronology, structural controls, and some aspects of alteration and mineralization are broadly similar to basement-hosted unconformity-related uranium deposits, they are also consistent with metasomatic iron alkali-calcic uranium (MIAC-U)-style metallogenesis. This alternative model raises the prospect of a previously unrecognized MIAC district in central Nunavut.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.726
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic GeologySame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207