MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2789329768 · doi:10.1071/aseg2018abw8_3e

What is ZTEM seeing over these tropical porphyry deposits?

2018· article· en· W2789329768 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Wijns, Jean M. Legault

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)First Quantum Minerals (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryPorphyry copper depositChalcopyritePyriteProspectingSaprolitePolymetallic replacement depositMineralogyMining engineeringCopperWeatheringHydrothermal circulationPaleontologyFluid inclusionsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A ZTEM survey over the Cobre Panama mine lease, which highlights the known porphyry copper deposits in the cluster, is credited with the discovery of a sixth deposit that has been included in the mine plan. The source of the ZTEM response is within the fresh rock below weathered saprolite and extends to a depth of many hundreds of metres, as does the orebody. The response is at least partly due to the sulphide content of the orebody, both pyrite and chalcopyrite. However, the sulphide percentage of all the deposits is quite low, to a maximum of 3% in significant volume. A shallow airborne TEM survey also detects a near-surface, fresh rock signature associated with the ZTEM response of each deposit. Thus the TEM response should probably be attributed in part to the associated alteration, mainly sericitic, and this will contribute to the intensity of the ZTEM signature as well. Inversion modelling in 2D and 3D indicates the ZTEM is detecting deeper parts of the orebodies, with the correct gross geometries, including the main sulphide mineralisation. These conclusions are supported by analysis of multiple deposits in the cluster.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.245 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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