Fractal and Multifractal Modeling of Hydrothermal Mineral Deposit Spectrum： Application to Gold Deposits in Abitibi Area, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of fractal/muitifractal methods are introduced for quantifying the mineral deposit spectrum which include a number-size model, grade-tonnage model, power spectrum model, multifractal model and an eigenvalue spectrum model. The first two models characterize mineral deposits spectra based on relationships among the measures of mineral deposits. These include the number of depesits,size of deposits, concentration and volume of mineral deposits. The last three methods that deal with the spatial-temporal spectra of mineral deposit studies are all expected to be popularized in near future. A case study of hydrothermal gold deposits from the Abitibi area, a world-class mineral district, is used to demonstrate the principle as well as the applications of methods proposed in this paper. It has been shown that fractal and multifractal models are generally applicable to modeling of mineral deposits and occurrences. Clusters of mineral deposits were identified by several methods including the power spectral analysis, singularity analysis and the eigenvalue analysis. These clusters contain most of the known mineral deposits in the Timmins and Kirkland Lake camps.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".