MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594522244 · doi:10.1190/tle36030215.1

Machine learning as a tool for geologists

2017· article· en· W2594522244 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsGDG Environnement
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrillDrill holeGeologyMachine learningArtificial intelligenceCore (optical fiber)Computer scienceMining engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Machine learning is becoming an appealing tool in various fields of earth sciences, especially in resources estimation. Six machine learning algorithms have been used to predict the presence of gold mineralization in drill core from geophysical logs acquired at the Lalor deposit, Manitoba, Canada. Results show that the integration of a set of rock physical properties — measured at closely spaced intervals along the drill core — with ensemble machine learning algorithms allows the detection of gold-bearing intervals with an adequate rate of success. Since the resulting prediction is continuous along the drill core, the use of this type of tool in the future will help geologists in selecting sound intervals for assay sampling and in modeling more continuous ore bodies during the entire life of a mine.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.527
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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