MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2264576153 · doi:10.1071/aseg2009ab087

A review of the Jaguar Cu-Zn-Ag VMS discovery and subsequent geophysical trials

2009· review· en· W2264576153 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N Cantwell, Matthew J. Cooper, J. Meyers, Nadine Martin, R. Sainty

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJaguarGeologyMining engineeringArcheanGeochemistryArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jaguar is an Archaean volcanogenic massive sulphide (VMS) deposit is located approximately 250km NNW of Kalgoorlie, and about 4 km south of the historic Teutonic Bore Cu-Zn-Ag mine. The current mining reserve is 1.6mt @ 3.1% Cu, 11.7% Zn, 0.72% Pb and 120g/t Ag. Jabiru Metals Limited began mining the deposit in May 2007 via a 1.8 km long decline that reaches the top of the orebody, which is 300m below the surface. The underground operation has a planned life of five years. The Canadian company Inmet Mining Pty Ltd entered a joint venture with Jabiru?s predecessor, Pilbara Mines Ltd, to explore for VMS deposits in 2001 and discovered the Jaguar deposit in February 2002. Their exploration programme included a large FLEM survey that covered most of their tenure. The discovery drillhole, TBD-202, was the second of two holes drilled into an 1800m long FLEM conductor. The initial holes were planned 600m apart as Inmet Mining were chasing large targets. Following the technical success provided by the FLEM survey a range of electrical geophysical techniques were trialled over the Jaguar deposit. The results of these surveys are reviewed here.

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)0.001
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: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.003

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.273 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207