MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Successful application of ground‐penetrating radar in the exploration of gem tourmaline pegmatites of southern California

2002· article· en· W1977111233 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey E. Patterson, Frederick A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPegmatiteGeologyGround-penetrating radarRadarSeismologyAmplitudeSIGNAL (programming language)BoreholeRegional geologyRemote sensingMining engineeringMineralogyComputer scienceOpticsTectonicsMetamorphic petrologyGeotechnical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Application of ground‐penetrating radar has been successful in delineating gem‐bearing zones in the Himalaya pegmatite mine of the Mesa Grande district of southern California. The high frequency of the electromagnetic signal allows features as small as a few centimetres to be resolved within 1–2 m of the surface of a mine wall. Careful initial set‐up consisted of: (i) selection of antennae with sufficiently high central frequencies; (ii) recording with a short time of scan to reduce end‐of‐scan noise levels; (iii) choosing appropriate colour schemes to highlight extreme amplitude variations. Operation during data collection consisted of pre‐painting marking points on the mine face and air launching the signal to reduce false anomalies caused by rocking of the antenna on the rough surfaces. Data processing using the Hilbert transform provided images of the cavity geometry that were then used by the blasting captain for accurate placement of explosives. The instantaneous frequency plot was found to be effective in distinguishing air‐filled from clay‐filled pockets, and the instantaneous phase plot was helpful in selecting potential targets where the amplitude was less than the maximum range. When carefully used in conjunction with good knowledge of the geological conditions, the method promises to provide an important tool for mapping internal structures of pegmatites, thus assisting future mining activities.

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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations24
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207