Airborne gravimetry takes off in the Western Australia ‘Generation 2’ reconnaissance gravity mapping project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 1974, the Australian Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics completed a 15-year systematic reconnaissance gravity survey of Australia with stations spaced at 11 km. The 1976 Gravity Map of Australia was a seminal product; half a century later, the data still provide the only coverage for substantial parts of the continent.In 2005, the Geological Survey of Western Australia, supported by Geoscience Australia, commenced a program of regional ground gravity surveys with 2.5 km station spacing, a sixteen-fold improvement of resolution over the ‘first generation’ BMR data. In 2013, GSWA declared its aim of completing ‘second-generation’ reconnaissance gravity coverage of WA by 2020.In 2016, with 45% of the State yet to be surveyed in the north and east, and ground access issues slowing progress and making uniform coverage increasingly difficult, GSWA and GA undertook the first government-commissioned regional aerogravity survey in Australia, using the Sander Geophysics AIRGrav system. The 38,000 line-km survey covering 84,000 km2 in the East Kimberley region was flown at 2.5 km line-spacing for compatible spatial resolution with GSWA’s regional ground surveys.We compare airborne with ground gravimetry in the context of the East Kimberley project and conclude that, for reconnaissance surveys: aerogravity costs now approach those of ground surveys; spatial resolution is equivalent; data precision is not a critical factor; and airborne and ground data can be merged seamlessly for interpretation.Consequently, new aerogravity surveys were commissioned over 264,000 km2 of northern WA in the Tanami, northeast Canning and Kidson regions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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.
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".