The Challenge (Goldcorp Inc.): prospección auríferavía Internet. Aplicación del modelo de zonade cizalla aurífera a la mina Red Lake (Ontario, Canadá)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En marzo del 2000 la compania canadiense Goldcorp Inc. invito a geologos de todo el mundo a presentar propuestas de exploracion para su propiedad minera en Ontario (Red Lake mine). El concurso fue denominado “The Challenge”. Las propuestas tenian que: ser concisas, identificar objetivos especificos, estar sustentadas por un razonamiento geologico apropiado, y ser enviadas via e-mail en ingles. Las propuestas podian ser presentadas por individuos o equipos. La informacion geologica sobre la propiedad minera se hizo disponible en formato digital (CD-ROM), y fue suplementada con informacion adicional en la pagina web habilitada por la compania a tal efecto (http://www.goldcorpchallenge.com/challenge. homepage_static.html). Un equipo de la Universidad Complutense de Madrid formado por un profesor y alumnos de una asignatura del programa de doctorado se registro en The Challenge (junto con otros 1400 participantes), y la propuesta de exploracion que elaboraron consiguio uno de los premios de semifinalistas. En este trabajo se muestra el desarrollo de dicha propuesta. Esta estuvo basada en la aplicacion del modelo de zona de cizalla aurifera a una mineralizacion compleja bajo el punto de vista tectonico y metamorfico, emplazada en un cinturon de rocas verdes del Arqueozoico. [ABSTRACT] In March 2000 Goldcorp Inc. invited contestants from all over the world to submit exploration proposals for its Red Lake Mine Property. The contest was named The Challenge. Each Proposal had to be: concise, identify specific targets, be supported by appropriate geological reasoning, and be submitted by e-mail in the English language. Proposals could be submitted by individuals or by teams. Geological information about the Property was available by CD-Rom and supplemented with additional information on the web site (http://www.goldcorpchallenge. com/challenge.homepage_static.html). A team from the University of Madrid (U. Complutense; a lecturer and a group of PhD. students) registered in The Challenge (among 1400 on-line prospectors), and the proposal was awarded one of the semifinalist prizes. In this paper we show the proposal, which was based on the application of the gold shear zone model to a mineralization hosted by a highly deformed sequence belonging to a greenstone belt of Archaean age.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".