Missed hits or near misses: determining how many samples are necessary to confidently detect nugget-borne mineralization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The probability of collecting a sample containing at least one large nugget from an exploration prospect (and thus detecting the nugget-borne mineralization) can be calculated using Poisson statistics and an equant grain model that describes the sampling characteristics of mineralization containing a range of nugget sizes. This procedure requires an estimate of the mass-weighted, average (effective) nugget grain size in the mineralized material, and an estimate of the (expected) grade of mineralization. Using these parameters, the number of effective nuggets in an equivalent equant grain model that describes the sampling characteristics of mineralization can be determined and used to estimate the Poisson probability of collecting at least one large nugget in a real sample. With this information, the probability of collecting m large nugget-bearing samples from a set of n samples can be determined using binomial statistics, providing the explorationist with an estimate of how well a prospect containing nugget-borne mineralization will be assessed using those n samples. Software can be used to perform the associated calculations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".