Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investigations in 1979 defined a sand resource at Wah Wah with three potential processing options to yield sand suitable for colourless glass making. In December 2016, further drilling was completed to infill some of the previously drilled area and extend into new areas.From this drilling, coloured and white sand resources have been defined, overlain by a clay unit. The sand has generally been considered to have a fluvial origin, but recent work suggests that the white sands may have a beach origin.White sand is defined by the 0.050% Fe2O3 contour and this resource coincides generally with higher yield, mostly underlying 6m to 8m of clay - the thinner overburden area.Estimated resources are 15 million tonnes of white sand with 0.035% Fe2O3 and 0.20% Ab_O3 at a yield of 58% for 8.7 million tonnes of sand suitable for colourless glass making. Sand not suited to glass making can be used for other products.These resources are Indicated Resources for reporting under the JORC Code 2012. They are defined by drilling and testing, and found to be suited for glass and other uses.From the investigations, a number of processing techniques can be employed with the final decision dependant on user requirements. However, the 2016 work demonstrated that an attrition-gravity process will be suitable for colourless glass sand, and cheaper than the other options considered in 1979.Based on results, the sand appears to be suitable for other products, including filter media, various construction uses, and other applications depending on markets.Compared to the resource defined in 1979 this deposit is now expected to be suited to: Selective extraction,Reduced focus on a single market,By-products to increase overall yield,Lower cost processing for the higher value products,Certainty that there is sufficient resource to meet longer term needs for a range of products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".