Reconciling airborne and ground geophysical outcomes in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryThe Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan Canada is the world’s premier location of high grade uranium deposits. Most occurrences show a close spatial association with graphite shear-fault zones in the basement rocks (overlain by resistive sandstone) and EM techniques have been used for over 30 years to help map these conductive features. While exploration initially focused on shallower parts of the Basin, current exploration is requiring investigation through thicknesses of sandstone well in excess of 500 m depth. With drilling costs typically now approaching CAN$0.5 million per hole in the deeper parts of the Basin, considerable efforts are being expended to define basement targets with as much spatial resolution as possible. Consequently, most companies are employing some form of ground geophysical surveys to try and sharpen the target focus prior to drilling. We have had the opportunity to compare airborne and ground surveys in a number of locations and have found that there can be considerable disagreement between the conductivity models derived from airborne surveys and those produced from ground EM (active and natural field) or DC resistivity surveys. A number of these examples are presented and discussed so as to better understand what are the likely sources of error and how best to manage the risk of multiple but non-conforming outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it