MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2383820231

Singularity of Mineralization and Multifractal Distribution of Mineral Deposits

2008· article· en· W2383820231 on OpenAlexaff
C QIUMING

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of Mineralogy Petrology and Geochemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultifractal systemFractalGeologyMineralization (soil science)Power lawMineralogySingularityMineralGeochemistryMathematicsGeometrySoil scienceStatisticsChemistryMathematical analysis
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to the common non-linear property of several types of non-linear hazardous processes such as earthquakes,volcanos,landslides,cloud formation,rainfall,hurricanes,flooding,and mineralization that result in anomalous amounts of energy release or mass accumulation confined to narrow intervals in space or time,these types of processes can be termed as singular processes.The end products of these non-linear processes can be modeled as fractals or multifractals.Most types of hydrothermal mineral deposits are genetically associated with mantle events and plate tectonics which themselves shows self-orginazed creticility.Here we show that not only the relationships between mineral deposits size and the number of deposits(size and number model) and between ore grade and the number of deposits(grade and number model) may follow power-law models,but also the element concentrations in a mineral district and posterior probability of an unit area containg deposits calculated by weiths of evidence method for prediction of mineral deposits may also follow power-law distribution with area.The singularity theory and non-linear models proposed have provided useful ideas and powerful tools for quantitative assessment of mineral resources.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of Mineralogy Petrology and GeochemistrySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207