MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801959710 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12554

3D joint inversion of magnetotelluric and airborne tipper data: a case study from the Morrison porphyry Cu–Au–Mo deposit, British Columbia, Canada

2017· article· en· W2801959710 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Benjamin Lee, Martyn Unsworth, Juliane Hübert, Jeremy P. Richards, Jean M. Legault

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPetro Geotech (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of AlbertaUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
KeywordsMagnetotelluricsGeologyElectrical resistivity and conductivitySeismologyInversion (geology)GeophysicsEconomic geologyMineralogyGeomorphologyTectonicsVolcanism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic and broadband magnetotelluric data were used to determine three‐dimensional electrical resistivity models of the Morrison porphyry Cu–Au–Mo deposit in British Columbia. Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic data are collected with a helicopter, thus allowing rapid surveys with uniform spatial sampling. Ground‐based magnetotelluric surveys can achieve a greater exploration depth than Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic surveys, but data collection is slower and can be limited by difficult terrain. The airborne Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic tipper data and the ground magnetotelluric tipper data show good agreement at the Morrison deposit despite differences in the data collection method, spatial sampling, and collection date. Resistivity models derived from individual inversions of the Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic tipper data and magnetotelluric impedance data contain some similar features, but the Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic model appears to lack resolution below a depth of 1 km, and the magnetotelluric model suffers from non‐uniform and relatively sparse spatial sampling. The joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic inversion solves these issues by combining the dense spatial sampling of the airborne Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic technique and the deeper penetration of the lower frequency magnetotelluric data. The resulting joint resistivity model correlates well with the known geology and distribution of alteration at the Morrison deposit. Higher resistivity is associated with the potassic alteration zone and volcanic country rocks, whereas areas of lower resistivity agree with known faults and sedimentary units. The pyrite halo and ≥0.3% Cu zone have the moderate resistivity that is expected of disseminated sulphides. The joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic inversion provides an improved resistivity model by enhancing the lateral and depth resolution of resistivity features compared with the individual Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic and magnetotelluric inversions. This case study shows that a joint Z‐axis tipper electromagnetic–magnetotelluric approach effectively images the interpreted mineralised zone at the Morrison deposit and could be beneficial in exploration for disseminated sulphides at other porphyry deposits.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations18
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207