MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982027777 · doi:10.4095/287929

Till composition and biogeochemistry near a porphyry Cu-Mo deposit: Gibraltar Mine, British Columbia

2011· report· en· W2982027777 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Plouffe, R G Anderson, C E Dunn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiogeochemistryGeologyGeochemistryComposition (language)Porphyry copper depositMining engineeringEarth scienceArchaeologyOceanographyGeographySeismologyFluid inclusionsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the 2008 field season, eleven till, six lodgepole pine and seven Engelmann spruce outer bark samples were collected near a porphyry Cu-Mo deposit (Gibraltar Mine) in central British Columbia. The purpose of this survey is to test the effectiveness of these sampling medium at detecting mineralization in regions where bedrock mineralization is covered with glacial sediments. Various fractions of the till matrix and bark samples were submitted for geochemical analyses. Our results demonstrate that minor elements (Au, Ag, Ba, Cu, Mo, Te, Zn) and one major oxide (Al2O3) are enriched to various degree in till down-ice from the Gibraltar ore bodies compared to background concentrations reported from the Bonaparte Lake map area south of the mine. Similarly, Cu and Mo are more enriched in lodgepole pine and Engelmann spruce outer bark near Gibraltar compared to the Bonaparte survey. These results attest to the utility of till and tree outer bark geochemical surveys as means to vector towards porphyry mineralization such as that contained in the Gibraltar ore bodies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMine drainage and remediation techniquesFrench-language works237,207