MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2946646952 · doi:10.1080/08123985.2019.1604068

Comparison of geophysical inversion programs run on aeromagnetic data collected over the Highland Valley Copper district, British Columbia, Canada

2019· article· en· W2946646952 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueExploration Geophysics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalBC StudiesUniversité LavalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of VictoriaMcMaster UniversityMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMemorial University of Newfoundland
KeywordsGeologyInversion (geology)GeophysicsSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada–Canada Mining Innovation Council (NSERC-CMIC) Mineral Exploration Footprints project, three selected magnetic inversion programs (VPmg, MAG3D and VINV) were used to process the same aeromagnetic data set from the Highland Valley Copper district, British Columbia, Canada. In each case, the inversion was constrained using available geological and physical property constraints. Analysis of magnetic susceptibility data suggests that the observed aeromagnetic anomaly pattern includes effects associated with boundaries between lithological units and fault zone alteration resulting from removal of magnetite. Susceptibility contrast associated with alteration is greater than that associated with changes in lithology. The inversions seek to define the three-dimensional geometry of geological boundaries and the fractures are treated as high-frequency noise. Results from the three programs, although similar, are sensitive to attributes of the different algorithms. VPmg emphasises physical boundaries between geological domains, MAG3D produces a more blurred image, whereas VINV produces reasonable geological images. Computer performance using the different programs ranges from reasonable for VPmg to computer intensive for MAG3D and VINV. Differences in the results reflect the inherent uncertainty in producing inversions from “noisy” aeromagnetic data.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.212 · 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