MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W83901612 · doi:10.5382/av100.13

Iron Oxide Copper-Gold Deposits<subtitle>Geology, Space-Time Distribution, and Possible Modes of Origin</subtitle>

2005· book-chapter· en· W83901612 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Patrick J. Williams, Mark D. Barton, David A. Johnson, Lluı́s Fontboté, Antoine de Haller, Geordie Mark, Nicholas H.S. Oliver, Robert Marschik

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubtitleGeologyPolitical sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Many diverse ore systems are classified together as iron oxide copper-gold (IOCG) deposits based on an empirical definition arising primarily from geochemical features that do not specify tectonic setting, geologic environment, or sources of ore-forming fluid, metals, or other ore components. Such deposits have (1) Cu, with or without Au, as economic metals; (2) hydrothermal ore styles and strong structural controls; (3) abundant magnetite and/or hematite; (4) Fe oxides with Fe/Ti greater those in most igneous rocks and bulk crust; and (5) no clear spatial associations with igneous intrusions as, for example, displayed by porphyry and skarn ore deposits. IOCG deposits commonly have a space-time association with Kiruna-type apatite-bearing oxide Fe ores and many examples of the latter contain sulfide minerals, Cu, and Au. Most IOCG deposits display a broad space-time association with batholithic granitoids, occur in crustal settings with very extensive and commonly pervasive alkali metasomatism, and many are enriched in a distinctive, geochemically diverse suite of minor elements including various combinations of F, P, Co, Ni, As, Mo, Ag, Ba, LREE, and U. Iron oxide Cu-Au systems are numerous and widely distributed in space and time; they occur on all continents and range in age from the present at least back into the Late Archean. In economic terms, the most important IOCG deposits are those in the Carajás district, Brazil (Archean, Amazon craton); in the Gawler craton and Cloncurry districts, Australia (late Paleoproterozoic to Mesoproterozoic debated intracratonic or distal subduction-related settings), and in the Jurassic-Cretaceous extended continental margin arc of the coastal batholithic belt in Chile and Peru. IOCG deposits and associated features define distinct metallogenic belts in which other types of Cu and Au deposits are rare or absent. The largest deposits include Salobo, Cristallino, Sossego, and Alemão (Carajás), Olympic Dam (Gawler craton), Ernest Henry (Cloncurry district), and Candelaria-Punta del Cobre and Manto Verde (Chile), and have resources greater than 100 million metric tons (Mt), ranging up to more than 1,000 Mt with metal grades that exceed those in most porphyry-style Cu ± Au deposits. A comparison of larger and well-described IOCG deposits illustrates the geologic diversity of the class as a whole. They occur in a wide range of different host rocks, among which plutonic granitoids, andesitic (meta)volcanic rocks, and (meta)siliclastic-metabasic rock associations are particularly prominent. Host rocks may be broadly similar in age to the ore (e.g., Olympic Dam, Candelaria-Punta del Cobre, Raul-Condestable) but in other cases significantly predate mineralization such that ore formation relates to a quite separate geologic event (e.g., Salobo, Ernest Henry). Mineralization is interpreted to have occurred over a wide depth range, from around 10 km (e.g., several deposits in the Cloncurry district) to close to the surface (e.g., Olympic Dam); where systems have been tilted and exposed in cross section (such as at Raúl-Condestable in Peru), they can display strongly zoned mineral parageneses. Structural and/or stratigraphic controls are pronounced, with deposits characteristically localized on fault bends and intersections, shear zones, rock contacts, or breccia bodies, or as lithology-controlled replacements. Host rocks in the vicinity of orebodies display intense hydrothermal alteration. In the immediate vicinity of the ore, the variable pressure-temperature conditions of alteration and mineralization are reflected in a spectrum of deposits ranging from those in which the dominant Fe oxide is magnetite and alteration is characterized by minerals such as biotite, K-feldspar, and amphibole through to hematite-dominated systems in which the main silicate alteration phases are sericite and chlorite. Where present, Na and Na-Ca alteration tends to be developed deeper or more distal from ore, is more extensive, and commonly predates K-Fe alteration and mineralization. Carbonates are commonly abundant, particularly in association with, or postdating, Cu-bearing sulfides that tend to be paragenetically late and postdate high-temperature silicate alteration in the deeper seated deposits. Independent variation in fO2- fS2-(T) conditions during mineralization produced deposits ranging from pyrite-poor examples, with complex Cu mineral associations, including chalcopyrite, bornite, and chalcocite (e.g., Salobo, Olympic Dam), to others in which pyrite and chalcopyrite are the main sulfides (e.g., Ernest Henry, Candelaria). Fluid inclusion evidence suggests that geochemically complex brines, commonly with a carbonic component, were involved in IOCG genesis. However, the ultimate sources of water, CO2, metals, sulfur, and salinity have yet to be well constrained, and it is possible that these components may have different origins from deposit to deposit. Brines and metals may be sourced directly from underlying magmas, indirectly by interaction of mag-matic fluids with country rocks or other fluids, or independently through modification of basinal or metamor-phic fluids. Ore deposition may primarily involve interaction of voluminous fluid with wall rocks and cooling. However, several studies have emphasized the role of mixing sulfur-poor, metal-rich brines with sulfur-bearing fluids at the site of ore deposition, although characterization of the causative fluids has proven problematic. Uncertainty also exists about the original tectonic settings of several major IOCG districts, and considerably more research is needed before it will be clear whether these deposits are linked by a single family of related genetic mechanisms or whether they can form in a range of fundamentally different geologic environments from fluids of different sources.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0650.018

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations501
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207