MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416032924 · doi:10.1111/1755-6724.15348

Mineralization of the Shuangwang Gold Deposit in the Western Qinling Orogen, China: Relations to Crust–Mantle Interactions and Tectonic Evolution

2025· article· en· W4416032924 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Liqian ZHANG, Shuo Wang, Yunhua Liu, Zixin Wei, Yi Huang, Qingxuan Wang, Weidong Liu, Jianjun CHENG

Bibliographic record

VenueActa Geologica Sinica - English Edition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Science Foundation of Shaanxi ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsMineralization (soil science)BrecciaZirconMaficIgneous rockLithophileCassiteriteDikeOre genesis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Shuangwang Au deposit in the western Qinling Orogen is hosted by a WNW–ESE‐trending breccia belt that is structurally controlled by the northern limb of the Yindonggou fold. Igneous rocks area in the deposit are part of the Xiba pluton, which comprises granodiorite and monzogranite that contains mafic microgranular envlaves (MMEs), and later mineralized granitic porphyry dikes. The mineralized granitic porphyry dikes were controlled by the same structures that controlled the ore bodies. Zircon LA‐ICP‐MS U‐Pb dating yields ages of 220.0 ± 1.9 Ma for the granodiorite, and 217.9 ± 1.9 Ma for the granitic porphyry, which is consistent with the mineralization ages reported in previous studies (220–218 Ma). Together with the similarity of alteration mineral assemblages between ore and mineralized granitic porphyry, we suggest that the mineralization was controlled by structure and Xiba pluton. The geochemical data show that the granodiorite and granitic porphyry are subalkaline and the MMEs are alkaline in composition. All samples have similar chondrite‐normalized rare earth element patterns with enrichment of light rare earth elements. The granodiorite and MMEs are depleted in Nb, Ta, Sr, P, and Ti and enriched in U, K, Pb, Zr, and Hf. The granitic porphyry is enriched in large‐ion lithophile elements but depleted in high‐field‐strength elements. The granodiorite and MMEs have low whole‐rock ε Nd ( t ) values (–10.90 to –2.32) and ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) i ratios (0.7000–0.7285), similar to coeval Triassic granites in the western Qinling Orogen. The ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) i ratios of the granitic porphyry have been affected by fluid metasomatism that results in higher ( 87 Sr/ 86 Sr) i values. The geochronological, geochemical, and isotopic evidence suggest that the Xiba pluton formed by partial melting of thickened lower crust that had been intruded by alkaline mafic magma, as documented by the MMEs, which were derived from a source metasomatized by subduction‐related fluids. The granodioritic and granitic porphyry magmas were relatively oxidized (fayalite–magnetite–quartz [FMQ] to magnetite–hematite (MH) buffer conditions; zircon Ce 4+ /Ce 3+ = 72–813; log( f O 2 ) = –22 to –8). We propose that magma mixing between lower crust and mantle‐derived mafic magma was triggered by the tectonic transition from a collisional to post‐collision setting, which provided the metals, S, fluids, and increase in magma oxygen fugacity that enabled the formation of the Shuangwang Au deposit. Since the Late Triassic, the western Qinling Orogen evolved from a syn‐collisional compressional to post‐collisional extensional environment. The mineralization of the Shuangwang Au deposit involved early formation of a tectonic breccia in the compressional stage. Subsequently, hydrothermal fluids derived from a magma ascended, migrated, mixed, and precipitated ores in the tectonic breccia during the later extensional stage to form the Shuangwang Au deposit.

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 score0.206
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa Geologica Sinica - English EditionSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207