MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047070729 · doi:10.1144/1467-7873/07-133

Optimizing geochemical threshold selection while evaluating exploration techniques using a minimum hypergeometric probability method

2007· article· en· W2047070729 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelection (genetic algorithm)Hypergeometric distributionComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hypergeometric statistics have recently been used to establish a quantitative measure of performance for geochemical exploration techniques over known mineral occurrences. Using this method, the effectiveness of new exploration techniques can be compared objectively with conventional approaches. Sample site classification is the basis on which survey results are compared. This performance measure requires prior knowledge of the location of mineralization and a model for element dispersion from the primary into the secondary environment. This information allows assignment of sample sites that should give ‘anomalous’ (e.g. those overlying mineralized zones) or ‘background’ results to be identified prior to the orientation survey. Previous application of hypergeometric statistics requires that a high contrast exists between ‘anomalous’ and ‘background’ subpopulations in the geochemical orientation data so that there is no uncertainty in the classification of samples. In this paper, a refinement is developed that allows consideration of geochemical variables that do not exhibit this required high level of geochemical contrast, that is, where ‘anomalous’ and ‘background’ subpopulations exhibit significant overlap. This refinement involves determining the hypergeometric probabilities of obtaining the same result at random ( P ( x )) for a range of geochemical thresholds, instead of only one threshold (i.e. the one used to classify anomalous and background samples in cases with high geochemical contrast). At each threshold, different numbers of samples will be classified as ‘anomalous’ and different numbers of ‘anomalous’ samples will occur at ‘anomalous’ sites. As a consequence, the resulting random hypergeometric probabilities will change with threshold level. Using a range of thresholds to classify the geochemical orientation survey results allows identification of the minimum hypergeometric probability (MHP) for the dataset. Using this threshold, the classification of anomalies will bear the least resemblance to what would be expected if the survey results were generated at random. Employing this refined MHP approach, one can simultaneously evaluate the effectiveness of an exploration method, and select the threshold that optimally classifies anomalous and background samples.

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.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.232 · 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