MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2334576263 · doi:10.1071/aseg2012ab085

3D inversion of SPECTREM and ZTEM data from the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo porphyry deposit, Alaska

2012· article· en· W2334576263 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)Anglo American (Canada)
FundersUniversity of Utah
KeywordsPebbleGeologyInversion (geology)Fixed wing3d modelMineralogyGeophysicsSeismologyGeomorphologyTectonicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringWingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryThis case study compares 3D inversion results from Spectrem Air’s SPECTREM 2000 fixed-wing timedomain airborne electromagnetic (AEM) system, and Geotech’s Z-axis Tipper Electromagnetic (ZTEM) airborne audio-frequency magnetics (AFMAG) system flown over the Pebble Cu-Au-Mo deposit in Alaska. Within the commonality of their physics, 3D inversions of both SPECTREM and ZTEM recover conductivity models consistent with each other and with the known geology. Both 3D inversions recover conductors coincident with alteration associated with both Pebble East and Pebble West. The 3D interpretation of both surveys has yielded improved the understanding of the geology, alteration and mineralization of the Pebble system. There are distinct practical advantages to the use of both SPECTREM and ZTEM, so we draw no recommendation on one system over the other. We do conclude however, that 3D inversions of AEM and ZTEM surveys add significant value to 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.218 · 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