MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2746165268

Identifying common protoliths for altered rocks using clustering and classification of geochemical data at the Minto Copper-Gold Mine, Yukon, Canada

2017· article· en· W2746165268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Shawn B. Hood, Matthew J. Cracknell

Bibliographic record

VenueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProtolithGeologyGeochemistryHydrothermal circulationCarbonate rockDisequilibriumMetasomatismMetamorphic rockMineralogyMining engineeringSedimentary rockPaleontologyMantle (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rocks in metalliferous ore deposits are typically classified as either ore or waste rock. An alternative distinction, more helpful for discriminating alteration haloes around ore, is protolith rock and altered rock. Metasomatic alteration occurs during hydrothermal ore deposition when mineralising fluids are in disequilibrium with surrounding host rocks. Geologists in brownfields areas commonly seek to interpret ore body geometry and surrounding alteration halos using the spatial distribution of whole rock chemical analyses. However, modelling the relative highs and lows in geochemical data does not give a complete representation of alteration geometry; weight percent values provide no direct information about the nature and magnitude of mass transfer during hydrothermal alteration. The compositional data of rocks are inherently multivariate and the concentrations of all constituents are related to each other by the process of closure. For example, in a simplified three element system, reducing one element will lead to an apparent enrichment of the other two.Here we present a workflow to process a whole rock geochemical dataset and produce labels for groups of similar least-altered protolith rocks, and then apply these labels to groups of altered rocks. This method involves quick means of exploratory data analysis and lends itself to iterative refinement, relying on a geologist to use their knowledge of a particular site.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.190 · 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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeCite Digital Repository (University of Tasmania)Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207