MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792472513 · doi:10.1071/aseg2018abt5_3f

1, 2.5 and/or 3D Inversion of Airborne EM data - options in the search for sediment-hosted base metal mineralisation in the McArthur Basin, Northern Territory

2018· article· en· W2792472513 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsGeoscience BC
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyInversion (geology)Structural basinDrillingOil shaleMineral explorationGeologic mapSedimentBase metalMining engineeringGeochemistryGeomorphologyPaleontologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The southern McArthur Basin in Australia’s Northern Territory is host to some Tier-1 sediment-hosted base metal mineral deposits including the McArthur River Zn-Pb-Ag mine. Airborne electromagnetic (AEM) data sets have been employed as a key exploration technology in the search for these mineral systems. A geological interpretation of results arising from the use of different inversion techniques, including a 1, 2.5 and 3D methods, was undertaken on a helicopter EM data set acquired over a structurally complex sediment package in the Batten Fault Zone north of the McArthur River Mine. The exploration targets were conductive, mineralised units (HYC pyritic shale member) associated with the Barney Creek Formation. Results from this study suggested that although the model fits were good, the derived conductivity models for the 2.5D and 3D inversions appeared to be smooth representations of geological reality, particularly when compared with data from drilling and surface geological mapping. Superficially, the 1D smooth model layered Earth inversions appear to map geological variability and structural complexity in greater detail even though the structures are more 3D in nature. IP effects are observed in the data and influence the modelled structure, but can be accounted for and complement the non IP 1D inversion results. The outcome of this study also indicates that when employing higher order inversion methods in the interpretation of AEM data sets, there may be significant benefit in asking a contractor/consultant for 1D inversion results as well. In the resulting interpretations if conductors appear in one but not the other, it is worth asking the question why?

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.236 · 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