MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047125065 · doi:10.2113/0100313

Gold Deposits, Exploration Realities, and the Unsustainability of Very Large Gold Producers

2001· article· en· W2047125065 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueExploration and Mining Geology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCitationGold miningIconMining engineeringGold rushGeologyDownloadInvestment (military)Computer scienceArchaeologyLibrary scienceGeographyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research Article| October 01, 2001 Gold Deposits, Exploration Realities, and the Unsustainability of Very Large Gold Producers H.R. BULLIS H.R. BULLIS Echo Bay Mines, Edmonton, Alberta Search for other works by this author on: GSW Google Scholar Exploration and Mining Geology (2001) 10 (4): 313–320. https://doi.org/10.2113/0100313 Article history received: 25 Nov 2002 accepted: 24 Mar 2003 first online: 02 Mar 2017 Cite View This Citation Add to Citation Manager Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Tools Icon Tools Get Permissions Search Site Citation H.R. BULLIS; Gold Deposits, Exploration Realities, and the Unsustainability of Very Large Gold Producers. Exploration and Mining Geology 2001;; 10 (4): 313–320. doi: https://doi.org/10.2113/0100313 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Refmanager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentBy SocietyExploration and Mining Geology Search Advanced Search Abstract This paper discusses what appears to be a flaw in the current belief, widely held within the gold mining industry and investment community, that the creation of ever-larger gold mining companies is desirable for mining companies and investors alike. The basis of the flaw is in the underlying assumption that very large gold producers can discover or acquire new gold deposits of the size necessary to replace extracted reserves on a year-on-year basis over the intermediate to long term (i.e., five to ten years and longer). As it will be noted in this paper, deposits of the size required to replace annual production of very large gold producers (VLGPs) are relatively few in number. Although discoveries of new gold deposits continue to be made, they are predominantly in the 0.5 to 2.0 million ounce range. Data represented here suggest that, although gold production from individual VLGPs continues to increase, the change is due to merging or acquiring other companies or projects with similar reserve life profiles. Therefore, the reserve life profiles of VLGPs have remained flat or have decreased.The paper will note recent changes in the industry and the remarkable increase in gold production reported by individual mining companies over the past several years. It will provide an overview of the geographical and geological distribution of known gold deposits and the range of deposit sizes. Finally, the paper will discuss the challenges that face large gold producers in replenishing their reserves that are being depleted at an ever-increasing rate. Unless otherwise stated, all production and reserve data have been taken from company documents in the public domain or publicly available information. You do not currently have access to this article.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.407
Threshold uncertainty score0.342

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.206 · 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