MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043163669 · doi:10.1117/12.383537

<title>Application of complex trace analysis for improved target identification in gem-tourmaline-bearing pegmatites in the Himalaya mine, San Diego County, California</title>

2000· article· en· W2043163669 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey E. Patterson, Frederick A. Cook

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGran Sasso Science Institute
KeywordsPegmatiteTourmalineGeologyGround-penetrating radarBearing (navigation)DikeMining engineeringGeochemistryRadarEngineeringCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gem bearing miarolitic cavities in rare metal, lithium enriched, granitic pegmatites pose challenging exploration targets, as they are not readily identifiable using normal geophysical methods. Application of ground penetrating radar (GPR) has been successful in delineating gem-bearing zones in the Himalaya pegmatite mine in San Diego County, California. Careful setup and data processing, using complex signal analysis, have so far allowed us to distinguish between gem- bearing pockets, non-gem bearing pockets, and barren/frozen dike. Each of us independently hypothesized, in 1995, that GPR could be an appropriate tool for gemstone exploration in the subsurface exposures in adits, drifts and stopes of many gem mines (Patterson, 1996; Cook, 1997). The culmination of these efforts was reached in June, 1998, with the first documented discovery of gem tourmaline pockets using this technique.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207