Dome-and-keel and linear accretionary architectures in the eastern Wabigoon superterrane, Canada: seismic profiling, magnetotelluric modelling, and gold endowment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tectonic processes control the formation of orogenic gold deposits. In Archean greenstone belts, both vertical and horizontal tectonic processes may have contributed to the formation of the deposits. Their relative contributions are evaluated in the Eastern Wabigoon terrane of the western Superior craton, Canada, where both vertical and horizontal tectonic processes operated during the Neoarchean Shebandowanian Orogeny. In the centre of the terrane, the Onaman–Tashota belt developed a dome-and-keel architecture during vertical tectonism, whereas along the southern margin of the terrane, the Beardmore–Geraldton belt acquired a linear accretionary architecture during horizontal tectonism. Orogenic gold deposits formed in deformation zones during doming in the Onaman–Tashota belt and along thrust faults during accretion in the Beardmore–Geraldton belt. A new Metal Earth seismic and magnetotelluric section across the two belts suggest that accretionary structures present in the Neoarchean rocks of the Beardmore–Geraldton belt are also present in the Mesoarchean basement rocks underlying the Mesoarchean to Neoarchean Onaman–Tashota belt. However, only in the Beardmore–Geraldton belt, where horizontal tectonic processes dominated, do they spatially coincide with gold deposits and conductors extending from the mid-crust to surface. These conductors represent deeply penetrating structure that channeled the upward flow of hydrothermal fluids. The presence of these structures in the Beardmore–Geraldton belt and their reactivation as transcurrent shear zones during subsequent gold mineralizing events explain the large difference in gold endowment between the two belts with over 4 million ounces of gold produced in the Beardmore–Geraldton belt compare to less than 100 000 ounces of gold in the Onaman–Tashota belt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".