MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2317761592 · doi:10.1190/1.3603568

The use of airborne EM to search for nickel deposits; three examples from Canada and Africa

2009· article· en· W2317761592 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ken Witherly

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsCondor Petroleum (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingChinaExposition (narrative)GeologyVariety (cybernetics)TerrainEarth scienceMineral explorationMining engineeringComputer scienceLibrary scienceGeographyGeophysicsCartographyArchaeologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last decade the search for new nickel resources has expanded globally and with it, explorers have made increasing use of airborne EM (AEM) technology. Particularly important to these exploration efforts has been the new generation of high powered time domain helicopter systems which provides cost effective, first pass exploration to be conducted in a wide variety of geographic and geological terrains. So as to provide the maximum exploration effectiveness, close attention needs to be paid to physical properties of the local deposit model, including the nature of the cover material, host rocks and targets of interest. This in turn will suggest the most suitable processing of the primary EM data. These outcomes then require integration with all other relevant geoscience data to aid in identifying the targets of maximum economic potential. To illustrate these points, the AEM results from three geologically and geographically diverse deposits are examined.

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)0.001
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 score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207