MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Detection of alteration at the Millennium uranium deposit in the Athabasca Basin: a comparison of data from two airborne electromagnetic systems with ground resistivity data

2010· article· en· W1899127567 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard S. Smith, Garnet Wood, Brian F. Powell

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsCameco (Canada)Laurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyUranium oreUraniumProterozoicBasementGeochemistryElectrical resistivity and conductivityStructural basinGeothermal gradientRadiometric datingGneissMineralogyUnconformityPetrologySedimentary rockGeomorphologyGeophysicsPaleontologyMetamorphic rockTectonicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The Millennium uranium deposit is located within the Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan. The basement rocks, comprised primarily of paleo‐Proterozoic gneisses, are electrically resistive. However, the deposit is associated with highly conductive graphitic metasediments that are intercalated with the gneisses. An unconformity separates the basement rocks from the overlying, horizontally stratified, Proterozoic sandstones of the Athabasca Group (which are also highly resistive). The strike extents of the graphitic metasedimenary packages are extensive and therefore electromagnetic (EM) survey techniques are successful at identifying these zones but do not identify the specific locations where they are enriched in uranium. Through drilling it has been noted that hydrothermal processes associated with mineralization has altered the rocks in the vicinity of the deposits, which should in theory result in a resistivity low. A significant resistivity low has been mapped coincident with the Millennium deposit using ground resistivity survey techniques. However, a comparison of the airborne EM and ground resistivity results reveals that the two data sets have imaged different features. The resistive‐limit (on‐time) windows of the MEGATEM data show conductive features corresponding to lakes located to the west and south of the deposit. The late‐time windows show a feature to the east of the deposit, interpreted as being associated with the east‐dipping graphitic basement conductors (similar to that observed in historical ground EM data collected in this area). The early‐time TEMPEST windows (delay times less than 0.2 ms) show a broad resistivity low located at approximately the same location as where the alteration has been identified through drilling. Modelling the data is not easy but a response that decays prior to 0.3 ms is consistent with 500 Ωm material in the sandstone, a resistivity value close to the lower limit with respect to the hydrothermally altered Athabasca group sediments in this area. The MEGATEM system does not see a conductive zone over the alteration as clearly but the high signal‐to‐noise ratio in the late‐time MEGATEM data means that the conductive material at a greater depth is more coherently imaged.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.890
Threshold uncertainty score0.219

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.279
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207