Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 1999 edition of the Australasian code for reporting of mineral resources and ore reserves (the JORC code) became effective in September, 1999, and is the latest revision of a code that was originally issued in 1989, but has an ancestry dating back to the first JORC report released in 1972. The JORC code has been operating successfully for more than ten years and, together with complementary developments in stock exchange listing rules, has brought about substantially improved standards of public reporting by Australasian mining and exploration companies. The code is now regarded as the world leader in this field; other countries use it as a template for their own reporting standards and it gives Australia a leading role in the development of international reporting standards. The reasons for the success of the code are varied, foremost among them being its adoption in full by the Australian and New Zealand Stock Exchanges and the ability and willingness of mining-industry organizations to bring ‘Competent Persons’ to account when necessary.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.118 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.099 | 0.137 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".