MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945636103 · doi:10.5382/econgeo.2019.4650

Predictive Models of Mineralogy from Whole-Rock Assay Data: Case Study from the Productora Cu-Au-Mo Deposit, Chile

2019· article· en· W2945636103 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEconomic Geology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMineralogyGeologyPyriteMineralSulfide mineralsSericiteMuscoviteQuartzClay mineralsCompositional dataChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mineralogy is a fundamental characteristic of a given rock mass throughout the mining value chain. Understanding bulk mineralogy is critical when making predictions on processing performance. However, current methods for estimating complex bulk mineralogy are typically slow and expensive. Whole-rock geochemical data can be utilized to estimate bulk mineralogy using a combination of ternary diagrams and bivariate plots to classify alteration assemblages (alteration mapping), a qualitative approach, or through calculated mineralogy, a predictive quantitative approach. Both these techniques were tested using a data set of multielement geochemistry and mineralogy measured by semiquantitative X-ray diffraction data from the Productora Cu-Au-Mo deposit, Chile. Using geochemistry, samples from Productora were classified into populations based on their dominant alteration assemblage, including quartz-rich, Fe oxide, sodic, potassic, muscovite (sericite)- and clay-alteration, and least altered populations. Samples were also classified by their dominant sulfide mineralogy. Results indicate that alteration mapping through a range of graphical plots provides a rapid and simple appraisal of dominant mineral assemblage, which closely matches the measured mineralogy. In this study, calculated mineralogy using linear programming was also used to generate robust quantitative estimates for major mineral phases, including quartz and total feldspars as well as pyrite, iron oxides, chalcopyrite, and molybdenite, which matched the measured mineralogy data extremely well (R2 values greater than 0.78, low to moderate root mean square error). The results demonstrate that calculated mineralogy can be applied in the mining environment to significantly increase bulk mineralogy data and quantitatively map mineralogical variability. This was useful even though several minerals were challenging to model due to compositional similarities and clays and carbonates could not be predicted accurately.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.202 · 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