MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908661004 · doi:10.4095/223786

Magnetic insights into basement geology in the area of McArthur River uranium deposit, Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan

2007· report· en· W2908661004 on OpenAlexaffabout
M D Thomas, S McHardy

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyUranium oreGeochemistryUraniumBasementStructural basinMining engineeringGeomorphologyArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calibration of magnetic features with gneissic basement units northeast of the Athabasca Basin, combined with extrapolation of geological-magnetic trends and drillhole information, is used to predict basement composition and structure beneath the basin in the McArthur River area, principally for a related gravity study. Magnetic lows are associated with pelitic-psammopelitic gneiss and lesser quartzite, intermediate levels with psammitic gneiss, and highs with granitoid units. Northeast-trending faults and contacts are interpreted mainly along steep magnetic gradients. Northwest-trending faults are inferred from narrow magnetic lows, and offsets or terminations of northeast-trending features. McArthur River uranium deposits lack characteristic magnetic signatures, although the P2 Main deposit lies along the southern margin of a moderate magnetic high. Uranium potential north to northeast of McArthur River is inferred to be greatest within magnetic lows of the Mudjatik Domain. These lows probably outline pelitic-psammopelitic paragneiss that locally contains graphitic conductors, which are prospective for unconformity-related uranium 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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.202
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.235
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations4
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207