MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948759431 · doi:10.5382/sp.21.04

Assessing and Mitigating Uncertainty in Three-Dimensional Geologic Models in Contrasting Geologic Scenarios

2018· book-chapter· en· W2948759431 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

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyEarth scienceMining engineeringEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The management of uncertainty in three-dimensional (3D) geologic models has been addressed by researchers across a range of use cases including petroleum and minerals exploration and resource characterization, as well as hydrogeologic, geothermal energy, urban geology, and natural hazard studies. Characterizing uncertainty is a key step toward informed decision-making because knowledge of uncertainty allows the targeted improvement of models, is indispensable to risk analysis, improves reproducibility, and encourages experts to explore alternative scenarios. In the minerals sector there is not a unified approach to uncertainty characterization, nor its mitigation. Assessing and mitigating uncertainty in 3D geologic models is a growing field but quite compartmentalized among different subdisciplines within the geosciences. By comparing uncertainty analysis as implemented for three modeling scenarios: basins, regional hard-rock terranes, and mines; at different stages of their respective workflows, we can better understand what a future “complete” modeling platform could look like as applied to the minerals industry. We analyze uncertainty characterization during the different steps in building 3D models as a generic workflow that consists of (1) geologic and geophysical data acquisition followed by processing and inversion of geophysical data, (2) the interpretation of a number of discrete domains boundaries defined by stratigraphic and structural surfaces, (3) homogeneous or spatially variable properties infilling within each domain, and finally (4) use of the models for downstream predictions based on these properties, such as resulting gravity field, gold grade distribution, fluid flow, or economic potential. Although regional- and mine-scale modelers have much to learn from the basin modeling community in terms of managing uncertainty at different stages of the 3D geologic modeling workflow, perhaps the most important lesson is the need to track uncertainty throughout the entirety of the workflow. At present in the minerals sector, uncertainties have a tendency to be recognized within discrete stages of the workflow but are then forgotten, so that at each stage a “best guess” model is provided for further analysis, and all memory of earlier ambiguity is erased.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations23
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207