MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

In-situ trace element and sulfur isotope analyses of sulfides as indicators of ore-forming fluid evolution in the Lakang’e porphyry Mo-Cu deposit, Tibet, China

2025· article· en· W4410539590 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Qi, Guoxiang Chi, Juxing Tang, Yumeng Wang, Pan Tang, Mengdie Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryTrace elementSulfurIsotopeIn situSulfideOre genesisFluid inclusionsPaleontologyQuartzMetallurgyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Lakang’e deposit shows at least four mineralization hydrothermal pulses (A, B1, B2, D). • Magnetite crystallization and the influx of meteoric water are the primary causes of f O 2 changes in the different veins. • Mo precipitation is primarily controlled by temperature and f O 2 , while Cu precipitation is mainly driven by temperature drease. The Lakang’e Mo-Cu deposit is a Mo-dominated porphyry deposit located in the Gangdese metallogenic belt of southern Tibet, which is known for Cu-dominated porphyry deposits such as Jiama and Qulong. The magmatic-hydrothermal evolution responsible for the development of ore-forming fluids in this deposit has not been systematically examined, thus limiting our understanding of the genetic link between Cu and Mo mineralization throughout the metallogenic belt. This study addresses this problem through in-situ analysis of S isotopes and trace elements of pyrite, chalcopyrite and molybdenite from hydrothermal veins of different stages (A, B1, B2, D), which reflect the evolution of the hydrothermal system in terms of S source and temperature, pH and redox condition. The overall range of δ 34 S CDT values (–7.68 ‰ to +0.75 ‰) of the sulfides and the lack of systematic variation from one stage to another are consistent with a common magmatic source for the sulfur. The decrease of Co/Ni ratios in pyrite from A and B1 to B2 and D veins indicates an overall cooling trend. The elevated As concentrations in sulfides and the lack of calcite in A and B1 veins versus the relatively low As in sulfides and presence of calcite in the D and B2 veins suggest that the fluids became less acidic from early to late stages. The relatively elevated Te concentration in pyrite in B1 and B2 veins compared to those in A and D veins suggests that B1 and B2 veins formed under relatively reducing conditions, whereas A and D veins formed under relatively oxidizing conditions. The consumption of Fe 3+ due to precipitation of large amounts of magnetite in A vein may be responsible for the decrease in f O 2 , which induced significant Mo mineralization in B1 veins. As the hydrothermal system continued to evolve with decreasing temperature and increasing influx of meteoric water, the f O 2 increased again, which promoted the precipitation of pyrite-chalcopyrite instead of molybdenite in the D veins. At last, another phase of distinct Mo mineralization may have been triggered by the release of residual metalliferous fluids from a dormant magma chamber due to tectonic reactivation, subsequently migrating upward and forming the B2 veins. Our study highlights the dynamic evolution of magmatic-hydrothermal fluids during the formation of the Lakang’e Mo–Cu deposit and demonstrates that fluid temperature, oxygen fugacity ( f O 2 ), and the involvement of meteoric water were the primary controls on mineralization. Molybdenite precipitation in the B1 and B2 veins was driven by decreasing temperature and f O 2 , whereas chalcopyrite precipitation in the D vein was triggered by fluid cooling due to mixing with meteoric water. Such dynamic magmatic-hydrothermal processes may have also operated in other Cu-Mo deposits within the Gangdese metallogenic belt, implying that separate episodes of Mo-dominated mineralization may have been potentially developed in the Cu-dominated deposits as well.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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