THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PRECAMBRIAN GOLD RESERVES FORMATIONS OF CRYSTALLIZED SHIELDS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gold reserves localized in Precambrian deposits are known in the most crystallized shields of the Earth. They are confined to Greenstone belts on the Canadian, Indian, Brazilian and Australian shields and represented by gold reserves deposits from the first ton to 1000 – 1500 tons (Pickle crow, nor-Acme, Homestake, etc. in North America, Kalgoorlie, Leonora and others in Western Australia). Despite the presence of trough structures of Precambrian age, some of which can be considered as analogues of Greenstone belts, the Aldan shield is quite specific of the named above. The comparison of ore fields help evaluate the genesis process of gold mineralization localized in Precambrian formations crystalline shields of the planet and thus define their similarity. There is a number of features that let evaluate the uniqueness of similarities: the anomaly of the magnetic field in the plan coincide with the gravity anomalies indicating the presence of dome uplifts of the basement; the rocks that led to the existence of anomalies of the magnetic field are similar in their geochemical features; the structures mapped by these anomalies are similar to the narrow anticlinal folds; the age of those structures is approximately the same; the identity of the ore-controlling factors and stratigraphic positions. These features allow to accurately assess the similarity of deposit named after P. Pinigin that has the largest gold resources in the world. Therefore, it gives the opportunity to hope for a significant expansion of the gold potential of the Precambrian age at the Aldan shield.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".