MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2982200743 · doi:10.4095/224565

Appendix 2: Morphological and compositional analysis of placer gold in the South Nahanni River drainage, Northwest Territories

2007· report· en· W2982200743 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kirsten L. Rasmussen, J K Mortensen, Hendrik Falck

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacer miningGeologyDrainageArchaeologyGeochemistryGeomorphologyGeographyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Placer gold has been reported in small amounts throughout the South Nahanni river drainage; however, the original source of the gold is uncertain. This study focuses on two types of placer gold in the area: (1) locally abundant grains derived from near Selena Creek, and (2) scattered grains recovered from streams throughout the South Nahanni drainage area. A shape analysis of all gold grains was completed and representative grains from each sample population were selected for imaging on the scanning electron microscope, along with analysis for Au-Ag-Cu-Hg values on the electron microprobe. The gold grains are typically >700 fineness and mercury is below detection levels (<0.20%). Approximately half the grains analysed from the Selena Creek area registered near to, or slightly greater than, detection levels of copper (<0.04%), whereas the majority of grains from the isolated showings had copper contents below detection levels. The results are compared with published morphological and compositional data for placer and lode gold in other regions.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0520.007

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207