MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2312560813 · doi:10.1071/aseg2013ab048

GRAVILOG: An update on the development and use of Borehole Gravity for Mining Exploration

2013· article· en· W2312560813 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
C. Nind, J. MacQueen, Roman Wasylechko, Madjid Chemam, Claudine Nackers

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAreva
KeywordsBoreholeGeologyDrillingInversion (geology)Mining engineeringStructural basinGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scintrex GRAVILOG borehole gravity meters are now successfully deployed by Abitibi Geophysics crews in boreholes for mining exploration in Canada and USA, and by Scintrex and Micro-g LaCoste crews in wells used for CO2 injection, sequestration and leaching in Canada, USA and Europe. In 2013, GRAVILOG systems and crews will be available in Europe, Russia, Brazil and Australia. Scintrex has developed and will be testing a dual sensor GRAVILOG probe in early 2013.A brief review of the GRAVILOG development and specifications is presented, followed by several recent case histories. The result from Donner Metals / Xstrata Zinc’s Bracemac KT Zone in the Matagami region of Quebec is the first documented use in mining exploration of borehole gravity to measure excess mass coincident with a borehole EM conductor. Forward modeling and inversion of GRAVILOG data from multiple holes has proven effective in outlining the mineralization and estimating the tonnage of the Virginia Mines’ Lens 44 on the Coulon property in Quebec. Apparent bulk density measurements from multiple holes at the Labrador Iron Mines’ James South Extension iron ore deposit near Schefferville, Quebec reduce drilling costs and time needed to obtain this information.A major source of error in bulk density measurements of thin beds is minimized by the dual sensor GRAVILOG system. In addition to eliminating the error in the depth interval between the sensors, common mode noise rejection improves the gravity difference data.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.011

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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