MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767431372

Relating altered rocks to equivalent protoliths using clustering and classification of geochemical data at the Minto copper-gold mine, Yukon, Canada

2017· article· en· W2767431372 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
KeywordsProtolithCluster analysisGeochemistryGeologySample (material)Computer scienceChemistryArtificial intelligenceMetamorphic rock
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Linking protolith rocks to their equivalent altered counterparts in mineral deposits facilitates interpretation of original rock geometry and computing relative mass changes during metasomatism. However, deducing such relationships becomes elusive when dealing with very large databases of geochemical data; identifying sample pairs for altered and unaltered equivalents is challenging, correlations between elements may not be intuitive, and large amounts of data are laborious to interpret manually. Machine learning offers potential solutions to problems involving large numbers of data, many variables or features, and complicated relationships between variables. 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. Protolith samples were clustered using K-Means, a technique that involves partitioning n observations into K clusters such that each sample is associated to the cluster belonging to the nearest mean. This clustering approach is analogous to visually assigning samples to groups based on X-Y geochemical plots, e.g., granite AFM diagrams that geologists commonly use. The advantage of K-Means clustering is that many variables can be considered simultaneously. Altered samples were classified using Random Forests, a supervised classification algorithm, based on the cluster results for the protoliths groups. This approach allows the rapid association of altered samples to their likely corresponding protolith. Interpreting the results gives insight into original protolith geometry, and undertaking further processing can improve the understanding of chemical changes during alteration. Generating and spatially interpreting results took only a few hours, including QaQc and trialling different pre-processing approaches, and was completed without costly geochemical software. Cross section interpretations of protolith geometry, i.e., before ore deposit formation, has an added benefit of lithology label confidence measures from Random Forests. The motivation of this workflow is to assist geologists working with large drillhole datasets including geochemical information and manual logging information. A common task during exploration is to provide interpretations of site geology, and information about the effects and spatial extent of alteration related to mineralisation. These, in turn, give exploration and mining teams a basis for understanding the potential role of original rock geometry controls on the location of ore, or hallmarks of enveloping alteration zones. The aim of this workflow is to provide a high-speed approach to processing drillhole information that is reproducible and objective. However, the method is not intended to be a black box, and carefully selection of samples and consideration of results by a geologist is still required.

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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.186 · 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