Case history of combined airborne time-domain electromagnetics and power-line field survey in Chibougamau, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploration for volcanogenic massive sulfides requires good geologic understanding. Geologic knowledge often is limited by a lack of outcrops. This is especially true in Canada under residual glacial covers. Geologic information must therefore be complemented by information obtained using means such as geophysical and geochemical observations. Electromagnetic (EM) methods extend lithological understanding to depths beyond the overburden. Massive sulfides are highly conductive and, depending on their depth and volume, may be detected easily by airborne EM surveys. They are more often equant than graphitic sediments, which typically have longer strike length. Current EMtechniques that identify massive sulfides operate in the frequency or time domain, the latter being more common. Additional information can be provided by using power-line fields as a source of EM signals when the powerlines are appropriately located in the area of interest. We have worked in an active exploration area near Chibougamau, Canada, known for a large occurrence of massive sulfide deposits. The geology is a sequence of volcanic formations with felsic and mafic intrusions. Our magnetic technique responded well to mafic rocks. An airborne time-domain EM survey mapped localized and intrasedimentary conductors in that area. We learned in our study that power-line EM fields can be used to map large-extent conductive formations and narrow geologic faults.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".