Challenges in Mineral Geophysics – Exploration for Unconformity Uranium in Arnhem Land (NT)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the late nineties Cameco Australia Pty Ltd and Cogema Australia Pty Ltd have been involved in exploration for unconformity related uranium deposits in Arnhem Land Australia. During this time the exploration model has evolved from the initial Canadian-Athabasca based model. Physical property measurements and field tests have led to the current integrated exploration strategy that incorporates the disciplines of geology, geochemistry and geophysics.Airborne radiometrics continues to be the primary tool for identifying surface uranium anomalies. However, other geophysical techniques are utilised in order to map basement lithologies, alteration and the depth of sandstone cover, which are also key exploration objectives. With these aims in mind airborne hyperspectral, magnetic and electromagnetic geophysical techniques have been extensively utilised as efficient methods for quickly evaluating large areas where rugged topography prevents effective use of ground techniques. The usefulness of these techniques is discussed utilising examples from Cameco’s King River project, located in northern Arnhem Land.It is shown that .5 s sampling is viable for detailed airborne radiometrics, TEMPEST can be used to estimate the unconformity depth and Hyperspectral airborne surveys can be used instead of ground PBVIA measurements for detecting alteration within sandstone.In both Arnhem Land and the Athabasca, exploration is now focusing on identifying uranium below thick sandstone cover sequences. The Australian challenge is to undertake this exploration without the strong graphitic conductors, which are closely related to the Athabasca unconformity uranium deposits.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".