Comparing VTEM time-domain EM and ZTEM natural field airborne EM survey results over the McArthur River unconformity uranium project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helicopter ZTEM natural field EM and VTEM helicopter time-domain EM system results are compared over the McArthur River Project in northwestern Saskatchewan. The ZTEM survey data were complicated by the fact that they were obtained in low signal winter conditions and with a major powerline present. The ZTEM results from 30 to 90 Hz were generally of good quality to within ∼1–1.5 km from the powerline; however the higher frequency (>180 Hz) tipper data are clearly affected by powerline noise as far as 5 km away. The ZTEM signatures agree well with those from the VTEM Max system; however source depths from 2D inversion indicate that the bedrock sources are shallower than expected (<250 m), possibly due to limited frequency bandwidth or else an improper (low) apriori resistivity model. 3D ZTEM inversion results appear much improved over 2D. In nearly all cases, depths of investigation estimates exceed 2 km for the ZTEM inversions. The VTEM Max system 30 Hz TDEM results were of a comparatively good quality, with powerline affecting the data to within less than <1 kilometre. Depths to basement range from 250–300 m and imaged the location of the basement graphitic pelites. Depths of investigation from RDI resistivity-depth imaging are estimated to reach and exceed 600 m in some areas. Both EM surveys and magnetics assisted in understanding basement geology. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 17, 2018 Start Time: 1:50:00 PM Location: 213B (Anaheim Convention Center) Presentation Type: Oral
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".