MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085598220 · doi:10.1144/1467-7873/10-im-035

Identifying kimberlite indicator mineral dispersal trains in the Pelly Bay region, Nunavut, Canada using GIS interpolation

2011· article· en· W2085598220 on OpenAlexaffabout
C A Ozyer, Stephen R. Hicock

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBayBiological dispersalTrainGeographyKimberliteGeologyEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyOceanographyCartographyGeochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Identification of kimberlite indicator mineral dispersal trains in glaciated terrain provides important clues in determining provenance. Complex ice flow history can distribute kimberlite indicator minerals such that dispersal trains are disguised within clusters of till samples containing abundant kimberlite indicator minerals. This study uses GIS with inverse distance weighted interpolation to identify and isolate dispersal trains within areas where large clusters of till samples with abundant kimberlite indicator minerals exhibit no apparent distribution patterns. The method was tested in the Pelly Bay region of Nunavut, Canada, where many areas contain clusters of till samples with abundant kimberlite indicator minerals, the method delineated dispersal trains within these areas. The study identified trains ranging from 1.5–7 km in length, with the heads of some trains ranging in width between 225 m and 3 km. Mg-ilmenite is the most abundant kimberlite indicator mineral in the Pelly Bay area, however, several trains with distinct relative abundances of kimberlite indicator mineral species were identified that suggest the presence of kimberlites with different intrusive phases. Our study suggests that several of the identified dispersal trains likely originated from kimberlite dykes and/or sills occupying NW–SE oriented structures in the bedrock.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207