3D seismic interferometry: Towards the development of a new tool for mineral exploration near an active mine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary A test survey to evaluate the suitability of interferometry for mineral exploration was completed in March of 2013. The survey was conducted at an active mine site and where the results can be directly compared to traditional active source seismic reflection data. Receivers (only) were deployed in the test survey at 336 locations along a grid covering one quadrant of the active source survey. Virtual shot gathers have been created at every receiver location. A few of the virtual gathers can be compared against a shot gather from the active source survey. There are differences, but there are similarities. The virtual shot gathers have been processed in two dimensions along a single line and are compared against the 3D active source results extracted along the same line used for the interferometry. Processed 3D cubes from the two surveys will be compared. There are differences in the two results requiring further study however these preliminary results (including the identification of a signature related to the sulphides) indicate the technique is promising and may be a new tool in the arsenal of exploration methods for mineral exploration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".