Electrical Properties of Magnetite- and Hematite-Rich Rocks and Ores
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SummaryMagnetite and hematite are common iron-oxides, being found in sedimentary, metamorphic and igneous environments and being associated with a wide variety of deposits styles, including orogenic gold, iron-oxide copper-gold and iron-ore deposits. While the magnetic and mass properties of magnetite and hematite have been comprehensively studied, there is relatively limited published information on their electrical properties, although anecdotally, it would appear that many geophysicists have encountered the situation in which their ‘highly prospective’ EM or IP anomaly has turned out to be the result of barren magnetite, and/or hematite.In 1994, Emerson and Yang extensively studied the electrical properties of magnetite-rich rocks as part of AMIRA project P416. Eight sponsor companies contributed a variety of samples for laboratory measurements of mass, magnetic, galvanic electrical, electromagnetic and induced polarisation properties. A petrological study was also carried out. The electrical properties of hematite have been similarly investigated on behalf of individual companies.This work has demonstrated that sulphide-free, magnetite- and/or hematite-rich rocks can be moderate to good conductors and also exhibit a measurable IP response. And in some cases, electrical anisotropy may be significant. The electrical behaviour of magnetite and hematite is related to factors such as quantity, grain size and texture and their electrical response can be considerably enhanced by relatively small amounts of sulphides, such as chalcopyrite. Field examples are presented confirming laboratory observations.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it