MRS Tests in Eastern Canada ‐ Coping with Magnetite Dissemination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From late 1990s to early 2000s several MRS (Magnetic Resonance Sounding) missions in Europe and Southern Africa have shown the appropriateness of the MRS technique for groundwater studies. However MRS tests in Eastern Canada in 2003, did not show significant NMR responses over shallow, saturated, clean sand targets. Upon examination, it was found that disseminated magnetite was likely the cause of high magnetic gradients at the scale of water containing pores. This was later confirmed at the Rice U. NMR lab (Hirasaki, personal communication 2004). The 2003 tests were documented in a paper with a recommendation to focus on T2 rather than T2*. Thanks to IRD, a spin echo mode of MRS survey was implemented on a light version MRS tool: NUMISLITE. This implementation was field tested in August 2008 over most of the sites tested in 2003. Field NMR spin echo responses were observed over these sites. All the tested sites represented shallow aquifers. In the mean time numerical modeling of the field-scale spin echo mode was developed at IRD, Grenoble, France. In a subsequent MRS mission - summer 2010 - a full power MRS tool (NUMISPLUS) was used to demonstrate that no spurious surface effects were observed during the 2008 tests. Sites in the same geological environment, with magnetite dissemination, were systematically investigated with aquifers at least 10 m below surface. Also a key site made in 2008 was repeated to insure instrumental integrity of the procedure. Clear NMR spin echo responses were observed at all the tested sites. As a side issue, field data acquisition was also modified to allow acquiring MRS data at locations where the Larmor frequency is an harmonic of the local power line frequency. All in all, the MRS technique is gradually improving toward a maturity status.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".