MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7128783027 · doi:10.5382/econgeo.5186

Sources of Sulfide Mineral Components in Au-Ag-W-Sb-Hg Deposits, Stibnite-Yellow Pine District, Idaho: Genetic Relationships to Host and Subjacent Rocks, and Regional Context

2025· article· en· W7128783027 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Peter G. Vikre, Wayne Premo, Michael Pribil, Erin E. Marsh

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStibniteContext (archaeology)Sulfide mineralsPaleozoicMineralGalenaVeinPyriteMineral resource classificationCarbonate rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Approximately 5.6 million ounces (Moz) of Au (~174 tonnes [t]) and significant Sb, Ag, W, and Hg were produced from deposits in the Stibnite-Yellow Pine district, Valley County, Idaho, or exist in drill-defined resources. Epigenetic minerals of deposits and resources occur in fault zones in late Cretaceous granitic rocks of the Idaho batholith, in late Proterozoic-early Paleozoic metasedimentary rocks of the Stibnite pendant, and in vein and replacement deposits in pendant strata. Deposits and resources formed during at least five paragenetically distinct events that spanned approximately 24 m.y. The district-wide distribution of Au, Sb, W, and Hg are consistent with temperature gradient zoning in, adjacent to, and distal to major fluid conduits represented by the high-angle, north- to northeast-trending Meadow Creek and West End fault zones. Sulfide minerals of four events and host rocks were evaluated for component sources using Pb, Sr, and S isotope values—which are determined by microbeam and bulk analytical techniques—and by comparison to isotope values, stratigraphy, and ages of host rocks of polymetallic Ag-Au-Cu-Co-Pb-Zn deposits, host rocks, and plutonic rocks in Idaho, Montana, Alberta, and the Great Basin. Based on initial 206Pb/204Pb, 208Pb/204Pb, and 87Sr/86Sr isotope values (13.17–21.26, 31.93–41.24, and 0.703–0.725, respectively) of sulfide minerals and whole rocks, sulfide mineral paragenesis, and comparisons, event 1A pyrite in vein and contact zone deposits (ca. 86–75 Ma); event 2 As ± Au pyrite, which contains most mined and resource Au (ca. 70–58 Ma); and some event 5 stibnite (ca. 49–46 Ma) were sourced from late Proterozoic-early Paleozoic and older, more radiogenic metasedimentary rocks. Alternatively, they were indirectly from Cretaceous intrusions in the Stibnite-Yellow Pine district that obtained Pb from these metasedimentary rocks. Less radiogenic Pb isotope values of other event 5 stibnite and cinnabar in mined deposits and resources are largely indistinguishable from those of the areally extensive Atlanta lobe of the Idaho batholith, reflecting mixed crust sources including Archean, Mesoproterozoic, and Paleozoic rocks. The broad range of δ34S values of sulfide minerals in deposits and host rocks of the Stibnite-Yellow Pine district (–19 to 9‰) and large masses of metasedimentary rocks adjacent to deposits reflect reduction of pore seawater sulfate following sedimentation and transfer of S in sedimentary pyrite to deposits. The relatively confined range of mostly positive δ34S values of minerals comprising events 1, 2, and 5 in granitic rocks (~1–9‰) implies that sedimentary pyrite was formed by thermochemical sulfate reduction (TSR) with δ34S values homogenized by high-temperature fractionation during Cretaceous magmatism. The broader range of δ34S values of event 5 cinnabar and realgar in metasedimentary rocks (~19–3‰) reflects direct replacement of sedimentary pyrite formed by thermochemical and biogenic sulfate reduction. Sulfur and Pb isotope systematics link many polymetallic deposits in Idaho, Montana, and the Great Basin, including those of the Stibnite-Yellow Pine district, to sedimentary source rocks and Mesozoic magmatism and demark a dominant metallogeny of large parts of the interior western United States.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEconomic GeologySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207