MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101399271 · doi:10.1190/sbgf2013-153

Gravimetric and Magnetic interpretation of Catalão II anomaly (GO-Brazil)

2013· article· en· W2101399271 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roberto Paulo Zanon dos Santos, Marta Sílvia Maria Mantovani, Wladimir Shukowsky, Eduardo M. Leite, Herbert Jorge Ferreira, Henrique S. Requejo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDivision of Ocean SciencesUniversity of British ColumbiaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico
KeywordsGravimetric analysisInterpretation (philosophy)Anomaly (physics)Computer scienceChemistryPhysicsCondensed matter physicsProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Catalão II anomaly is located approximately 14 Km from the ultramafic-alcaline-carbonatite complex Catalão I which is a very important site explored by mineral companies in the extraction of phosphate, niobium, rare earth, titanium and vermiculite. The geophysical modeling of Catalão II anomaly can help to understand if there is a relationship between Catalão I and Catalão II intrusions and also evaluate the shape of the body itself. The Geophysical Inversion Facility of the University of British Columbia (UBC-GIF, mag3d and grav3d programs) were used to invert the magnetic and gravimetric data. The resultant susceptibility and density models from both methods were compared in the same mesh and confronted with the geological knowledge of the anomaly. The outcome models agree with the expected contrasts and the overall result can be used for a preliminary estimation of the anomaly and motivate a more detailed investigation over all the complex area.

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 score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.164

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.172 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207