MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2081981873 · doi:10.1190/1.1839654

The Tli Kwi Cho kimberlite complex, Northwest Territories, Canada: A geophysical case study

2004· article· en· W2081981873 on OpenAlexaffabout
Joel Jansen, Ken Witherly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsCondor Petroleum (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteGeologyEarth scienceGeophysicsGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diamondiferous Tli Kwi Cho kimberlite complex is located about 360 km NE of Yellowknife, NT, Canada in the Lac de Gras kimberlite cluster of the Archean Slave Craton. Tli Kwi Cho consists of paired geophysical anomalies, DO18 and DO27 identified in a late‐1992 helicopter‐borne magnetic and EM survey, and was first intersected by drilling in March 1993. From the initial airborne survey, both DO18 and DO27 show coincident EM and magnetic anomalies. Subsequent to the initial 1992 survey, continued geophysical exploration included two other generations of helicopter‐borne magnetic and EM surveys, as well as ground‐based magnetic, HLEM, TEM, gravity and VLF surveys. Modeling was performed on the data; for the magnetic results, both 2.5D forward and 3D inverse models were calculated and 1D inversion was performed on the EM data. This work yielded insights into the nature of the kimberlites, and was very useful in helping to delineate the edges of the intrusive complex due to the presence of both non‐magnetic and non‐conductive kimberlite phases. Although a >4200 tonne bulk‐sample collected in 1994 showed that the Tli Kwi Cho kimberlites contain significant amounts of diamond (0.36carats/tonne), the occurrence was deemed uneconomic primarily owing to the low value of the stones recovered (US$21.70 in 1994) from an underground bulk sample.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.806
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.221
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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

Citations19
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207