MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320228965 · doi:10.1071/aseg2013ab246

Next generation 3D geological and geophysical modelling, west Tasmania

2013· article· en· W2320228965 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Duffett, Daniel Bombardieri, Tim Chalke

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies
Canadian institutionsMira Geoscience (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDevonianGeologyMagnetic anomalyTectonicsGeophysicsInversion (geology)Gravity anomalyInterpretation (philosophy)Geologic mapPaleontologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Airborne magnetic and ground gravity data have been inverted to recover 3D distributions of magnetic susceptibility and density over an area (40 km x 35 km) in western Tasmania. Building on previous modelling and structural interpretation, the overall modelling strategy focused initially on the most magnetic units (Cambrian ultramafics), which are regionally associated with major tectonic features. Interpretation of their geometry via iterative 3D magnetic inversion and geometry adjustment thus outlines a structural framework capable of satisfying geologic and magnetic and gravity observations. Significant slabs of ultramafic material are demonstrated to underlie a considerable portion of the area, agreeing with previous 2D forward model investigations. This framework is effectively filled in with other major geological elements, including extensive low-density Devonian granites and magnetic Cambrian granites, such that geologic, magnetic and gravity constraints are all grossly satisfied. Magnetic and gravity residuals present at the conclusion of the modelling process are thus interpreted to indicate features such as alteration systems that are geologically as well as geophysically anomalous, and hence of exploration interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.006

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 head0.207
Teacher spread0.168 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeological and Geophysical StudiesFrench-language works237,207