MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183501599 · doi:10.4095/220190

Electrical conductivity mechanism of sericitic schist samples from Giant and Con mine areas, Yellowknife mining district, Northwest Territories

2000· report· en· W2183501599 on OpenAlexaffabout
S Connell, P A Hunt, T J Katsube

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSchistGeologyMining engineeringGeochemistryArchaeologyGeographyMetamorphic rock

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Detailed textural examination using scanning electron microscope analysis was performed on six sericitic and chloritic-sericite schist samples in a preliminary study designed to determine the electrical resistivity characteristics of alteration zones that accompany gold-bearing quartz veins in the Yellowknife mining district. The purpose was to obtain information required to help develop efficient exploration strategies. Results indicate that a multilayer electrically anisotropic model consisting of thin alternating resistive and conductive layers applies to five of the six samples studied. The conductive layers are characterized by platy, fine-grained micaceous material, resulting in significant but moderately low electrical resistivity values (3606600 W.m) in the direction parallel to foliation, likely due to moderately good pore-fluid connectivity. Sulphide minerals have had little to no effect on these resistivities. The resistive layers consist of quartz and ankerite. The low electrical resistivity characteristics of the sixth sample are likely determined by a well developed fracture system.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.979
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207