MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979043535

A code for the valuation of mineral properties and projects in South Africa

2002· article· en· W2979043535 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alastair Macfarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsValuation (finance)AccountingCode of practiceBusinessMateriality (auditing)Mineral resource classificationEngineeringEngineering managementGeologyGeochemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy was approached by the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy to present a paper on the current practice in terms of the valuation of mineral projects and properties, given the development of a Code for the Valuation of Mineral Properties, developed in Australia (the VALMIN Code), and a similar Code in Canada (the CIMVal Code). This paper is the result of research and investigation into the matter, in terms of the reporting of Mineral Resources and Reserves, financial reporting practice, the Listing Rules of the Johannesburg Securities Exchange, and various practices in valuation. The paper establishes that a strong linkage has already been established between the SAMREC Code for the reporting of Mineral Resources and Reserves and the Listing Rules, and that, for completeness, a Code for Valuation needs to be developed. This Code will be similar to its international counterparts, with the necessary inclusions which are relevant to South Africa, and will provide guidelines and definitions on matters such as transparency, materiality and competency in valuation. It proposes that a multi-stakeholder steering committee be established under the auspices of the SAIMM, to deliberate and design a process for establishing such a Code.

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.794
Threshold uncertainty score0.191

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.123 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations7
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207