MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2184780218 · doi:10.5539/jgg.v7n4p108

Analytic Signal and Euler Depth Interpretation of Magnetic Anomalies: Applicability to the Beatrice Greenstone Belt

2015· article· en· W2184780218 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Thabisani Ndlovu, R. T. Mashingaidze, P. Mpofu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geography and Geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMagnetic anomalyAeromagnetic surveyEuler's formulaInterpretation (philosophy)GeophysicsPotential fieldGeologic mapMagnetic surveySIGNAL (programming language)MagnetizationGreenstone beltAnalytic signalSeismologyGeodesyPaleontologyMagnetic fieldSignal processingPhysicsMathematicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We apply the Analytic Signal and Euler depth filtering techniques on magnetic data to identify a magnetic causative body location-depth relationship, two parameters of importance in both geophysical exploration and ore body modelling. We identify a dipping magnetic contact from the interpreted Euler depth anomalies, showing a good agreement with both the Total Field Magnetic (TFM) map and the Analytic Signal (AS) map. The Euler depth anomalies correlate well with the locations and edges of shallow causative bodies. The deeper Euler interpreted sources explain the magnetic high on the regional aeromagnetic map which is coincident with neither geological contacts nor the more recent dolerite intrusions. This suggests that the magnetic highs on the regional aeromagnetic map are due to deep seated sources, otherwise invisible on the regional geological map. The results show the usefulness and relevancy of these two filters not only in interpreting routine TFM data from the study area, but up to a regional scale. While the aeromagnetic data shows that the magnetisation pattern is predominantly divorced from the geological map, the ground magnetic data interpretation points to a more recent magnetisation of the belt, enabling conclusions to be drawn about the geological history and structural geology otherwise not evident on the geological map.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations5
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geography and GeologySame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207