MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106168839 · doi:10.1190/1.2133784

75th Anniversary: The historical development of the magnetic method in exploration

2005· article· en· W2106168839 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsATCO (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRaster graphicsGeologyBasementEconomic geologyMineral explorationMagnetic surveyGeothermal explorationVariety (cybernetics)Sedimentary rockInversion (geology)LithologyRemote sensingScale (ratio)Magnetic anomalyMining engineeringComputer scienceEarth scienceGeophysicsGeothermal gradientSeismologyPaleontologyComputer graphics (images)CartographyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceGeothermal energyCivil engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The magnetic method, perhaps the oldest of geophysical exploration techniques, blossomed after the advent of airborne surveys in World War II. With improvements in instrumentation, navigation, and platform compensation, it is now possible to map the entire crustal section at a variety of scales, from strongly magnetic basement at regional scale to weakly magnetic sedimentary contacts at local scale. Methods of data filtering, display, and interpretation have also advanced, especially with the availability of low-cost, high-performance personal computers and color raster graphics. The magnetic method is the primary exploration tool in the search for minerals. In other arenas, the magnetic method has evolved from its sole use for mapping basement structure to include a wide range of new applications, such as locating intrasedimentary faults, defining subtle lithologic contacts, mapping salt domes in weakly magnetic sediments, and better defining targets through 3D inversion. These new applications have increased the method's utility in all realms of exploration — in the search for minerals, oil and gas, geothermal resources, and groundwater, and for a variety of other purposes such as natural hazards assessment, mapping impact structures, and engineering and environmental studies.

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.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.210 · 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