MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of pyrite and arsenopyrite compositions, in situ S isotopes, and bulk Pb isotopes from the Cape Spencer gold deposit, New Brunswick, Canada

2025· article· en· W4407397710 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alan Cardenas-Vera, David R. Lentz, Christopher R.M. McFarlane, Kathleen G. Thorne

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New BrunswickUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNew Brunswick Innovation FoundationCarleton UniversityUniversité Laval
KeywordsArsenopyritePyriteGeologyGeochemistryCapeIsotopeMineralogyArchaeologyMetallurgyChalcopyrite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• LA-ICP-MS data indicated that at Cape Spencer gold occurs as solid solution within the crystal lattice and as nano- and micro-inclusions in pyrite. • A sequential shift towards more δ 34 S negative values may be induced by wall-rock sulphidation or phase separation. • Both the in situ S and bulk Pb isotope data indicate that ore-forming fluids could have been derived from a mixed source. • In situ δ 34 S isotope analysis can be rapidly performed using LA-ICP-QQQ-MS measurements on thin sections. The Cape Spencer gold deposit is situated proximal to the boundary between two major lithotectonic zones of the Canadian Appalachians, the Caledonia and Meguma terranes, within a fold-thrust belt in southern New Brunswick along the Minas Fault Zone. Gold mineralization occurs in quartz-dominat veins with 2–5 % sulphides hosted by the highly deformed and sheared rocks of the Millican Lake Granite and the Cape Spencer Formation. In this research, in situ S isotope and trace-element concentrations of pyrite in combination with bulk pyrite Pb isotope analyses are presented to better understand the metal sources, fluid channels, and mechanisms of ore deposition. Based on textural characteristics and trace element concentrations, five generations of pyrite from the hydrothermal stage were identified in the ore bodies: Py1a, Py1b, Py2a, Py2b, and Py3. The first pyrite generations, Py1a and Py1b (substage I), contain higher concentrations of Co and Ni than pyrite from substages II and III and have positive δ 34 S values ranging from +6.8 to +18.7 ‰. Economic concentrations of gold are associated with Py2a and Py2b (substage II), which occur as spongy and porous pyrite; Py2a pyrites contain visible gold along fractures and margins. Py1a to Py2b display an Au-Ag-Pb-Bi-Te association, also supported by the presence of hessite, petzite, sylvanite, and native bismuth in the gold ores. Pyrites from substage II display slightly less positive values of δ 34 S of +1.0 to +12.3 ‰. The last identified pyrite generation, Py3 (substage III), contains no gold and is characterized by high concentrations of As and Cu compared with pyrites from the previous generations and negative δ 34 S values of −9.8 to −3.8 ‰. This sequential shift towards more negative values from Py1 to Py2 may be induced by phase separation and wall-rock sulphidation processes, in addition to interaction with rocks of the Lancaster Formation for Py3. The generally low gold contents (<0.3 ppm) in pyrite and visible gold within fractures and along pyrite grain margins suggest post-depositional dissolution of pyrite. The influx of ore fluids, consistent with cyclic decompression, induced the removal of iron from Fe-bearing minerals, mainly specular hematite that led to an increase of the Fe in the fluid, destabilizing the A u ( H S ) 2 - complexes and promoted the depletion of S and subsequent gold precipitation. The ore-forming fluids were transported along major structures and derived from a mixed source that includes intrusive and metasedimentary rocks from the Avalonia and Meguma terranes, sharing similar characteristics to those values from the Meguma gold deposits, as indicated by both the S and Pb isotope signatures

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.218 · 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.

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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207