MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910848961 · doi:10.4095/211094

Geological classification of Canadian gold deposits

2000· report· en· W2910848961 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyGeochemistryMining engineeringArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Classifications of ore deposits provide essential frameworks for designing exploration strategies, evaluating prospects, and performing resource assessments of selected areas. This paper proposes a geological classification of lode gold deposits, based largely on the nature of the ore and on the geological settings of the deposits. Sixteen common types of bedrock gold deposits are distinguished and their main geological attributes summarized. They do not correspond to an equal number of genetic types: many of these deposit types represent different components of larger hydrothermal systems and are genetically related. An important emerging point is that the majority of lode gold deposit types identified here are represented by at least one large example (>100 t Au); the search for large gold deposits must therefore rely on a multiplicity of models.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score0.966

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Quick stats

Citations121
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207