MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320413958 · doi:10.1071/aseg2012ab318

ZTEM airborne AFMAG survey results over low sulphidation epithermal gold-silver vein systems at Gold Springs, south eastern Nevada

2012· article· en· W2320413958 on OpenAlexaff
Jean M. Legault, Shengkai Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyOverburdenMining engineeringTest siteGold oreGeochemistryMineralogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryA ZTEM (Z-Tipper Axis Electromagnetic) helicopter AFMAG test survey was conducted in April, 2011, over the Gold Springs Project, in south eastern Nevada, for low sulphide epithermal gold exploration. Previous ground CSAMT surveys at Gold Springs revealed a positive correlation between the known epithermal gold systems and buried, subvertically-dipping resistivity high features that extend to depth. Synthetic forward modeling showed that ZTEM could also be successful, provided topographic effects were accounted for.The ZTEM test results performed over the known epithermal gold prospect in southeastern Nevada appear to correlate very well with the CSAMT results and the known geology, in particular the presence of all the known epithermal centers over resistivity highs. Similar anomalies have been identified in previously unexplored areas of thicker overburden cover. 2D inversions of the airborne ZTEM, using a newly developed Avert2d code that accounts for bird clearance and 2d topography, appear to agree very well with the inversions obtained from ground CSAMT. These results provide encouragement for the application of ZTEM for epithermal gold deposits elsewhere in the district.

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.046
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.208 · 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

Citations11
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207