MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100843970 · doi:10.1190/geo2011-0483.1

Seismic properties of the Voisey’s Bay massive sulfide deposit: Insights into approaches to seismic imaging

2012· article· en· W2100843970 on OpenAlexaff
Deanne Duff, Charles A. Hurich, Sharon Deemer

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of NewfoundlandSt. John’s Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyBayPyriteSulfideGeochemistryMineralGeophysical imagingMineralogySeismologyChemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Seismic methods offer significant potential advantages for minerals exploration over more traditional geophysical techniques because of the comparatively high resolution of seismic imaging. This is particularly true as minerals exploration is required to explore deeper to find resources. However, adaptation of seismic imaging techniques to the complex crystalline targets common in the mining environment requires a thorough understanding of the physical properties of the specific combination of ore and host rocks under consideration to choose an appropriate imaging technique. Analysis of the sulfide ores and associated host rocks from the Voisey’s Bay nickel-copper-cobalt deposit indicates that in the pyrrohotite-pentlandite-rich but pyrite-poor assemblage at Voisey’s Bay, seismic velocities are significantly lower (mean∼4500 m/s) than either the felsic or mafic host rocks (mean∼5900 m/s and ∼6400 m/s). This observation is in contrast with pyrite-rich massive sulfide ores that have velocities that are significantly higher than typical host rocks. The large velocity contrast between the Voisey’s Bay ores and their host rocks makes them good targets for tomographic imaging. However, due to the trade-off between the low velocities and high densities of the Voisey’s Bay sulfides, acoustic impedance contrasts can be quite modest making them less attractive for seismic reflection imaging. Detailed analysis of two different mineralized zones at Voisey’s Bay further demonstrated that, depending on the limiting signal-to-noise ratio, the choice of an effective seismic imaging technique is not universal across a mineral deposit and may be affected by subtle variations in sulfide mineralogy and by the structural/magmatic setting. Our analysis clearly indicated that knowledge of physical properties and geologic setting is critical to the choice of which seismic technique to apply in a given exploration setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.157 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicSeismic Imaging and Inversion TechniquesFrench-language works237,207