Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past several years there have been a number of ‘new’ selective extraction/partial digestion (SE/PD) methods introduced to the mineral exploration industry. Some of these are truly novel, employing emerging technologies and recent chemical discoveries to digest specific mineral components of geochemical samples. Others represent improved, but recycled, historic approaches that benefit from advanced instrumentation and knowledge to surpass the performance of historic SE/PD techniques. Nowadays, most major commercial geochemical laboratories offer their own versions of a variety of SE/PD approaches, and all claim thattheir versions offer significant exploration advantage over conventional analytical techniques. However, a significant number of geochemists remain unconvinced regarding the advantage that some of these SE/PD techniques offer. This is due to a large number of factors, including: i) the lack of disclosure of the geochemical procedures involved in the digestions, ii) the lack of knowledge of what is actually being extracted from a sample by these methods, iii) the lack of an adequate number of objective assessments of these techniques in orientation surveys, and iv) the lack of adequate rigorous comparisons of the results of these new techniques with those from conventional (trusted) exploration methods. The objective of empirical assessment of a new exploration technique is to determine whether the new technique provides exploration advantage over competing, established methods. Exploration performance can be determined using the hypergeometric probability of obtaining a result by chance that is equivalent in performance to the results of an orientation survey testing a new SE/PD method. The lower the hypergeometric probability of a result equivalent to that from an orientation survey, the more likely the exploration method successfully detected the presence of mineralization. This probability is thus a quantitative measure of exploration performance that allows rigorous comparison of conventional andnew exploration techniques. Furthermore, this statistical procedure for assessing exploration performance of new SE/PD techniques provides the objectivity required to evaluate the effectiveness of any new exploration method.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".