MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7036670483

Contamination of mafic to ultramafic magmas by sulfur-bearing sediments: evaluation of the environment of deposition and tracing the unique signature of the contaminants through the magma using multiple sulfur and iron isotope data

2018· dissertation· en· W7036670483 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMspace (University of Manitoba) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnoxic watersSulfurSulfideSulfateArcheanContaminationSedimentary rockMaficDiagenesis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple stable isotopes of sulfur (δ33S, δ34S, and Δ33S) and iron (δ56Fe) are used to identify the sources of sedimentary rock contamination at both the Voisey’s Bay (Labrador, Canada) and the Hart (Ontario, Canada) magmatic Ni-Cu-platinum-group element (PGE) deposits. At both locations, sulfide minerals were formed in sedimentary rocks during diagenesis as a result of bacterial sulfate reduction, prior to interaction with the magmas that resulted in the formation of the sulfide mineralization. In the Hart area, both exhalite and graphitic argillite were formed under predominantly anoxic conditions with localized, or transient, oxygen oases in seawater. The fluid composition was a result of mixing of seawater with hydrothermal fluids. Sulfur in the sediments in the Hart area was derived from the reduction of sulfate that had been mass-independently fractionated in the anoxic Archean atmosphere prior to delivery to the seawater. Multiple sulfur isotopes identified the sources of contamination in both the Voisey’s Bay and Hart deposits, and determined that the Main Zone and Eastern Extension at Hart likely had different contaminants that provided sulfur to form the mineralization. Signatures of these contaminants were distinguishable up to a few hundred meters from the sulfide-rich zones, allowing this to be used as a geochemical tool to vector towards the mineralization. The iron isotopic composition of sulfides from the Voisey’s Bay deposit was too heavily influenced by the host silicate magma to recognize the signature of contamination, but could be used to identify contamination in the Hart deposit. However, this data does not uniquely identify the source of contamination in the Hart deposit, and is not able to identify the signature of contamination at distances of more than a few meters from sulfide mineralization. These data sets have different sensitivity to contamination during equilibrium isotope exchanges with the silicate magma due to the difference in the initial concentration in the magma, as indicated the difference in the distance away from sulfide mineralization at which contamination can still be recognized. In conclusion, based on this study, use of multiple isotope and elemental methods to determine the presence and extent of contamination is strongly recommended.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMspace (University of Manitoba)→Same topicBotany, Ecology, and Taxonomy Studies→French-language works237,207→