MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2372316163

COMPARISON OF ASSESSMENT GUIDELINES OF MINING PROPERTIES

2009· article· en· W2372316163 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jiaqi Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueResources and Industries · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeomechanics and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGuidelineChinaAccountingBusinessEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental planningGeographyPolitical scienceEnvironmental scienceLawArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada,Australia and South Africa go ahead in assess mining properties and have their own guidelines and standards,which promote greatly the development of mining properties assessment.This paper compares the Canada's CIMVal,Australia's Valmin and South Africa's Samval and Code 14 of International Assessment Guideline Committee,and provides a reference for China to establish mining property assessment guidelines.

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)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.329
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0160.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources and IndustriesSame topicGeomechanics and Mining EngineeringFrench-language works237,207