MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2188966086 · doi:10.4095/213241

Preliminary geological and petrographic study of the Poplar Mountain Au occurrence, southwestern New Brunswick

2002· report· en· W2188966086 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Guoxiang Chi, S. Watters

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetrographyGeologyArchaeologyMining engineeringGeochemistryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Poplar Mountain Volcanic Complex consists of three principal volcanic and subvolcanic units in the Poplar Mountain area, i.e. porphyritic dacite, dacitic volcaniclastic rocks, and basaltic volcanic rocks. The porphyritic dacite is a subvolcanic intrusion located in the centre of a volcanic dome and is sur-rounded by dacitic volcaniclastic rocks. The basaltic unit is stratigraphically above the felsic units. Gold mineralization is mainly associated with arsenopyrite, and to a lesser extent with pyrite and stibnite. The sulphides are disseminated in the dacite, and in various quartz-carbonate-sericite veins and quartz-cemented breccia. The mineralized zones are characterized by a higher degree of fracturing and veining than the barren zones, and are closely related to phyllic (sericite+carbonate+quartz+illite) alteration. Propyllitic (chlorite+carbonate+illite) alteration is widespread, and is mainly preserved in nonmineralized zones. The mineralization and alteration share some analogies with low-sulphidation epithermal deposits, or the outer zone of a porphyry-type 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 score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.187

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.257
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

Citations5
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207