MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135293180 · doi:10.1071/aseg2015ab201

Three-dimensional geology from potential field geophysics: Applications to Bathurst Mining Camp, Eastern Canada

2015· article· en· W2135293180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Des Fitzgerald, Hernan Ugalde, Bill Morris, H. Holstein

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityWorld Wildlife Fund Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInterpretation (philosophy)GeophysicsCurvatureField (mathematics)AmbiguityPotential fieldGeometryComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interpretation methods and tools for geophysics datasets continue to evolve. Advances in clustering algorithms, the use of implicit functions to create 3D surfaces, new algorithms to estimate source depths and dips, and the availability of clever computational geometry libraries, contribute to the discipline of potential field interpretation techniques, allowing for a much more explicit statement of implied 3D description. While traditional scalar measures of potential fields have benefited from applying new ideas, perhaps more exciting is the reduction in ambiguity imposed from gradient measurement when used as the basis for field interpretation. Full tensor gravity gradiometry in particular, allows for 2D fault dip and throw calculations. Direct detection of high density bodies and faults via state-of-the-art gravity gradiometry is now a reality. Bodies greater than 200m in lateral extent are detectable. Implicit 3D structural geology modelling techniques derived from gravity curvature attributes of the observed gravity field present a leading edge technique for defining structurally controlled near surface geology geometry. A demonstration from the Bathurst camp dataset is given.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.858
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.198 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207