Characterization of alteration and mineralization at the Archean Grey Fox and Hislop magmatic-hydrothermal gold deposits, Matheson, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Abitibi Greenstone belt (AGB) is host to some of the world’s largest gold deposits and their study has led to various gold deposit models and classifications. The latter includes a syenite- associated deposit type, which was first recognized in the early 2000s. This type of mineralization is present at the Grey Fox and Hislop deposits, which are located 80 km east of Timmins, Ontario. A study of their geologic setting, alteration, mineralogy, mineral chemistry, veining styles, and metal associations, suggest that these deposits, as well as others in the area, developed in different zones of a larger magmatic-hydrothermal system associated with alkalic intrusions of probable Timiskaming age (i.e., <2680 Ma). As such, they formed relatively early in the deformation history of the belt and predate the formation of the more common orogenic or greenstone-hosted quartz- carbonate vein deposits, such as the nearby Black Fox, which make up much of the gold budget in the AGB. A strong host-rock control is present at both deposits and their complex alteration histories provide insights on the formation of multiple mineralization styles within a single system. These different mineralization styles are described here to provide guidelines for mineral exploration for this deposit type in the Abitibi greenstone belt, as well as in other greenstone belts globally.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".