MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2359917061

U mineralization types and U mine exploration potential of Labrador in Canada

2015· article· en· W2359917061 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wang Yong-chu

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal geology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMineralization (soil science)GeochemistryMetamorphismSedimentary rockIron oxide copper gold ore depositsPegmatiteMineral explorationVolcanic rockVolcanoHydrothermal circulationPaleontologyFluid inclusions
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Labrador is located in the eastern edge of the Canadian Shield,where the U mineralization are various in type. The most important mineralization is hosted in metamorphosed volcanic and sedimentary rocks,which is mainly distributed in Paleoproterozoic supracrustal rocks and intrusive rocks in the Central Mineral Belt( CMB)of Makkovik Province. The mineralization types in this area are Magma type( pegmatite and acidic volcanic rocks),Epigenetic-Hydrothermal type( some ones are similar to Fe oxide--Cu--Au( IOCG) type mineral deposit),Cut Tape type( may be the reason of metamorphism-accountable) and layered mineralization in sandy sedimentary rocks,but the typical unconformity are not found. On the base of mineralization types,combining with oreforming geological characteristics and mineralization geological data of deposits which have been found,we can analyze and conclude that some of the metallogenic prospect areas have great exploration potential,and we can get the delineation of White Bear Lake and Nash Lake exploration strategy selection of U deposit.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal geology→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→