History and status of till geochemical and indicator mineral methods in mineral exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mineral exploration methods ranging from boulder tracing to elemental and indicator mineral methods utilize clastic debris transported from mineralized bedrock sources. An understanding of glacial process and history, combined with sound survey design and interpretation, are essential to successful application of these methods in glacial terrain. In North America and Fennoscandia, mineral exploration and glacial geology advanced concurrently in the latter 20th century, coincident with a shift in exploration to verburdencovered regions. During this time, an understanding of sediment transport history was followed by recognition of the textural and mineralogical tendencies of glacial sediments. Development of logistics such as reverse circulation and rotasonic drilling followed, and in the 1990s, the discovery of diamonds in Canada resulted in much progress in application and awareness of drift prospecting methods. The discipline now centres on intricate indicator mineral and elemental methods based on concepts from glacial geology, mineral deposit geology, and mineral chemistry, in the search for a broad range of commodities.
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 | 0.036 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".