MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007822709 · doi:10.1190/1.1444871

Mineral exploration in the Thompson nickel belt, Manitoba, Canada, using seismic and controlled-source EM methods

2000· article· en· W2007822709 on OpenAlexaffabout
Don White, David E. Boerner, Jianjun Wu, Steve Lucas, E. K. Berrer, Jorma Hannila, Rick Somerville

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)Geological Survey of Canada
FundersUniversiti Teknikal Malaysia Melaka
KeywordsGeologyArcheanBasementGneissSeismologyGeochemistryMetamorphic rockDrillingTrough (economics)Geologic mapBoreholeDepth soundingPetrologyGeomorphologyPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seismic reflection and electromagnetic (EM) data were acquired near Thompson, Manitoba, Canada, to map the subsurface extent of the Paleoproterozoic, nickel ore-bearing Ospwagan Group. These data are supplemented by surface and borehole geology and by laboratory measurements of density, seismic velocity, and electrical conductivity, which indicate that Ospwagan Group rocks are generally more seismically reflective and electrically conductive than the Archean basement rocks that envelop them. The combined seismic/EM interpretation suggests that the Thompson Nappe (cored by Ospwagan Group rocks) lies blind beneath the Archean basement gneisses, to the east of the subvertical Burntwood lineament, in a series of late recumbent folds and/or southeast-dipping reverse faults. The EM data require that the shallowest of these fold/fault structures occur within the basement gneisses or perhaps less conductive Ospwagan Group rocks. The results of this study demonstrate how seismic and deep sounding EM methods might be utilized as regional exploration tools in the Thompson nickel belt.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.648
Threshold uncertainty score0.325

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207