MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2905956993 · doi:10.3390/rs11010021

The Potential of Reflectance and Laser Induced Luminescence Spectroscopy for Near-Field Rare Earth Element Detection in Mineral Exploration

2018· article· en· W2905956993 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Lorenz, Jan Beyer, Margret Fuchs, Peter Seidel, David P. Turner, Johannes Heitmann, Richard Gloaguen

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHelmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-RossendorfHelmholtz-Gemeinschaft
KeywordsRare-earth elementRemote sensingNear-infrared spectroscopyRare earthLuminescenceMineralMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceMineralogyGeologyOpticsOptoelectronicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New energy, transport, computer and telecommunication technologies require an increasing supply of rare earth elements (REEs). As a consequence, adequate and robust detection methods become essential for the exploration and discovery of new deposits, the improved characterization of existing deposits and the future recycling of today’s high-tech products. Within this paper, we investigate the potential of combining passive reflectance (imaging and point sampling) with laser stimulated luminescence (point sampling) spectroscopic measurements across the visible, near and shortwave infrared for REE detection in non-invasive near-field mineral exploration. We analyse natural REE-bearing mineral samples from main REE-deposits around the world and focus on challenges such as the discrimination of overlapping spectroscopic features and the influence of the mineral type on detectability, feature position and mineral matrix luminescence. We demonstrate that the cross-validation of results from both methods increases the robustness and sensitivity, provides the potential for semi-quantification and enables the time- and cost-efficient detection of economically important REE, including Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Dy, Er, Yb and potentially also Ho and Tm.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.440
Threshold uncertainty score0.222

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations47
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207