MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910285873 · doi:10.4095/223770

Context of the Deilmann orebody, Key Lake mine, Saskatchewan

2007· report· en· W2910285873 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Harvey, K M Bethune

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKey (lock)Context (archaeology)Mining engineeringGeologyArchaeologyGeochemistryGeographyComputer scienceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Deilmann orebody was formed at the intersection of the unconformity underlying Athabasca Group and an east-northeast-trending anastomosing zone of deformation centred on graphite-bearing metasedimentary rocks of the Daly Lake Group. Four ductile to brittle-ductile deformational events predated deposition of the Athabasca Group, whereas two brittle deformational events occurred during and after deposition. Alteration and mineralization were intimately related to D5 faults, the most prominent of which is the Key Lake Fault. These formed by the brittle reactivation of older (predating Athabasca Group) fault structures. In a paleovalley on the unconformity surface underlying the Athabasca Group, the basal Athabasca Group sandstone onlaps the erosion surface, indicating early valley-fill deposition. Overlying strata are characterized by horizontal, laterally continuous (sheet-like) bedding. The location and pattern of mineralization suggests that this feature, in part, affected fluid flow. Near-infrared reflectance spectrometry analyses on samples from the Deilmann pit allowed identification of a number of alteration patterns revealing a clear relationship with faults postdating the Athabasca Group. The relative abundance of these different alteration signatures is a useful exploration tool.

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 score0.185
Threshold uncertainty score0.373

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207