MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2528840696 · doi:10.1071/aseg2016ab187

Applying advanced gravity and magnetic inversion methods to expand the Platreef PGE-Ni-Cu resource in the Bushveld Complex

2016· article· en· W2528840696 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Williams, Barry de Wet, Sello Melvyn Kekana, S. Suzanne Nielsen, David W. Broughton

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsIvanhoe Energy (Canada)BP (Canada)
FundersU.S. Geological Survey
KeywordsGeologyGradiometerInversion (geology)GeophysicsPlacer miningDrillingSeismologyMining engineeringGeochemistryMagnetic fieldMagnetometer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many potential field inversion algorithms available, and all are sufficiently capable of generating a model that explains supplied geophysical observations. The challenge is extracting a model that provides real geological insight. Here we present applications of two different styles of advanced inversions to a deep exploration program at the Platreef PGE-Ni-Cu deposit in the Bushveld Igneous Complex of South Africa. The initial approach was to apply generalised focussing constraints to a 3D magnetic vector inversion, an approach chosen to manage the effect of expected strong remanent magnetisation. This resulted in successful prediction and drill definition of inferred resources within a deep, west-dipping extension to the shallow-dipping “Flatreef” deposit. Later, a detailed 3D model of geological constraints based on drilling and mapping was constructed and used to tightly constrain inversions of gravity data derived from a FALCON airborne gravity gradiometer survey. The resulting 3D density model accurately predicted a continuation of the Flatreef host rocks to shallower levels than previously anticipated. This facilitated further drilldefinition of additional inferred resources within a southern extension of the Flatreef deposit. Key to the success of the inversions at accurately targeting mineralisation at depths of 700-1300 m depth, was the inclusion and integration of all available information to ensure that predictions were consistent with prior observations.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207