MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416082858 · doi:10.1130/g53574.1

Gold mobility in Archean metasedimentary belts: Implications for orogenic gold deposits

2025· article· en· W4416082858 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diogo Ribeiro, Bertrand Rottier, Antoine Godet, Georges Beaudoin, Clifford Patten, Carl Guilmette, Adrian G. Rehm, Isaac S. Malta, Jochen Kolb, Douglas K. Tinkham, Iain Pitcairn

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsLaurentian UniversityGeological Survey of CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGreenstone beltArcheanMetamorphic rockVolcanic rockSedimentary rockTransect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The southern Superior Province (Canada) comprises large metasedimentary belts, such as the Pontiac and Quetico subprovinces, adjacent to Au-endowed greenstone belts. The Pontiac sedimentary rocks have been proposed as a source of Au for the highly endowed southern Abitibi greenstone belt. However, a comparison with sedimentary rocks adjacent to poorly endowed greenstone belts is lacking. Here we examine a suite of metasedimentary and minor volcanic rocks collected from three transects in the Pontiac and Quetico metasedimentary belts adjacent to greenstone belts with variable Au endowments. We combine in situ Au data of sulfides in metasedimentary rocks with whole-rock ultra-low-detection Au data. Gold concentrations decrease across metamorphic isograds in the well- and moderately endowed transects, while limited Au mobility is observed in the poorly endowed transect. The release of Au from metasedimentary rocks is linked to the pyrite-pyrrhotite transition. This reaction is incomplete in the poorly endowed transect, explaining the limited Au mobility observed. Our data reveal a spatial correlation between Au mobility in metasedimentary belts and Au endowment in the adjacent greenstone belts.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.452

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207