Lithoprobe’s impact on the Canadian diamond-exploration industryThis article is one of a series of papers published in this Special Issue on the theme <i>Lithoprobe — parameters, processes, and the evolution of a continent</i>.Earth Sciences Sector Contribution 20070261; Lithoprobe Contribution 1479.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lithoprobe aided and will continue to guide diamond exploration in Canada via a number of diverse ways and at scales from cratons to individual ore bodies. Specific transects outlined the domainal nature, geometry, and age relations of crust, subjacent mantle, and diamond-bearing roots in unusually rich detail for cratonic settings such as those of the Superior and Slave cratons, as well as pericratonic (shield) settings such as those of the Sask craton and Buffalo Hills terrane. The Superior and Slave examples of craton construction by multiple underthrust layers, as inferred from structural geometries observed in Lithoprobe seismic and magnetotelluric surveys, remain the clearest resolved to date. The first definition of the Sask craton occurred 10–15 years ago and helped fuel the diamond industry’s ongoing revision of Clifford’s Rule for exploration so as to include targets in Proterozoic shield settings. Main Lithoprobe transect results and supporting geoscience studies have helped to demonstrate the very different settings for paragenesis of both peridotitic and eclogitic types of diamonds found across Canada. Seismic methods have delineated many of the the oldest, typically depleted cratonic mantle blocks, as well as Archean and Proterozoic sutures, where larger percentages of eclogite might occur. Development of geophysical methods related to Lithoprobe data acquisition has led to metre-scale, high-resolution mapping of diamondiferous kimberlite pipes and shallow-dipping dykes, thus allowing more accurate estimates of their volume and more efficient mining of these diamond deposits.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".