MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1570873850 · doi:10.1002/9780470514986.ch13

Exploration Strategies for Hydrothermal Deposits

2007· review· en· W1570873850 on OpenAlexaff
Robert A. Horn

Bibliographic record

VenueNovartis Foundation symposium · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)Dairy Farmers of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHydrothermal circulationGeologyDrillingMars Exploration ProgramEarth scienceGeochemistryMining engineeringPaleontologyAstrobiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With unlimited money the most certain strategy for finding most hydrothermal metal deposits would be by drilling to 5000 m at 50 m spacing. However, the cost would far outweigh the benefit of the discoveries. Geological knowledge and exploration techniques may be used to obtain the greatest benefit for minimum cost, and to concentrate human and material resources in the most economic way in areas with the highest probability of discovery. This paper reviews the economic theory of exploration based on expected value, and the application of geological concepts and exploration techniques to exploration for hydrothermal deposits. Exploration techniques for hydrothermal-systems on Mars would include geochemistry and particularly passive geophysical methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNovartis Foundation symposiumSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207