MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008933844 · doi:10.1071/aseg2001ab032

FALCON test results from the Bathurst Mining camp

2001· article· en· W2008933844 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mark Dransfield, Asbjørn Nørlund Christensen, Peter Diorio, Marion Rose, P. Stone

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsDiscovery Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGradiometerGravimeterFalconGeologyGeodesyRemote sensingMining engineeringGeophysicsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BHP commenced exploration surveying with the world's first fully operational, airborne gravity gradiometer in October 1999. This gradiometer (called Einstein), together with a later one called Newton, was developed in conjunction with Lockheed Martin by BHP's FALCON project. Falcon data are acquired by Sander Geophysics Ltd., flying a Cessna Grand Caravan to survey specifications typical of aeromagnetic surveys.The first FALCON survey was flown over a portion of the Bathurst mining camp in New Brunswick, Canada in order to compare system performance with existing extensive and detailed ground-gravity data.The ground-gravity data, supplied courtesy of Noranda Minerals Exploration Ltd., were upward continued to the flying height and vertically differentiated to provide vertical gravity gradient data suitable for comparison with the airborne data.The two data sets compare very well and the results demonstrate that FALCON airborne gravity gradiometer is capable of detecting sources with a vertical gravity gradient signal of greater than 10 Eo and a full-width at half-maximum of 500 m.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.003

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.244
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

Citations21
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207