MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001205210 · doi:10.1144/gsl.sp.2001.185.01.02

Till geochemistry and sampling techniques in glaciated shield terrain: a review

2001· review· en· W2001205210 on OpenAlexaffabout
I McMartin, M B McClenaghan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeological Society London Special Publications · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyTerrainShieldGeochemistrySampling (signal processing)GeomorphologyMining engineeringEarth sciencePhysical geographyPaleontologyCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Till is a favoured sample medium for locating mineral deposits in glaciated shield terrains of Canada and Fennoscandia because it best reflects the primary composition of the bedrock source area. In the sampling phase, an important and costly component of till surveys, sample density, sample depth and sample method must be chosen according to the needs of the exploration program. Surface till sampling methods in forested areas differ from those used in permafrost terrain. However, in both areas, concentrations of labile ore minerals and their products of decomposition can be detected in the fine fraction (< 2 mm) of weakly oxidized till. In thin drift-covered areas, till samples are collected by hand excavation or trenching at < 5 m depth. In areas of thicker drift, more expensive methods such as reverse circulation rotary drills, rotasonic drills and portable drills are used to collect till samples at depth and to determine lateral and vertical variations in till geochemistry. Laboratory methods are an essential part of till geochemical surveys. The choices of the size fraction and analytical methods are determined by the nature and composition of the expected bedrock target, and by costs.

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)0.001
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations45
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeological Society London Special PublicationsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207