Integrating high resolution resistivity/IP surveying and core measurements over nine known mineral deposits: Yukon, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary High resolution resistivity/IP (HRRIP) surveys were carried out over nine mineral deposits within Yukon. The objectives of this study were 1) to investigate whether HRRIP surveys could map mineralization and structure associated with known deposits, and 2) to determine which arrays, if any, were the most diagnostic for a given deposit type. The study included a copper porphyry deposit, a lead-zinc-silver vein deposit, and several different styles of gold mineralization/deposits. The location of the HRRIP line(s) were chosen based on the known mineralization and geology of the deposit. On average 3 different arrays were carried out along each line. Variations of dipole-dipole, inverse Schlumberger and pole-dipole arrays, as well as an array developed by Advanced Geosciences Inc. of Austin, Texas were used. Two-dimensional inversions of each array for each line were carried out to produce 2D resistivity and IP cross sections. These sections provided the fundamental information for the study. In addition resistivity and chargeability measurements were carried out on cores from several of the deposits which provided additional information to use when interpreting the sections. The inversion results show that HRRIP surveys are able to produce resistivity and IP sections that generally correlate with the known mineralization and structure of the deposits. However, there are often differences between the inversion results (both resistivity and IP) of the different arrays along a given profile, and the location of resistivity and IP features is sometimes offset or missing relative to known structure and/or mineralization. The depth of penetration of the HRRIP method employed is estimated to be approximately 60 to 70 m for all arrays used except the pole-dipole array which has a depth of penetration estimated to be closer to 90 m. The study shows the HRRIP method can be effective for mapping a range of mineral deposits. However, care must be exercised when interpreting the inversion results because 1) there can be subtleties within the data and 2) not all resistivity and chargeability values from the inversions can be assumed to be associated with mineralization and/or structure. The arrays that were most effective for the HRRIP surveys were the dipole-dipole and inverse Schlumberger arrays, with their variations
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".