MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Electromagnetic and electrical methods applied to mapping coked coal – A case study from the Bowen Basin, Eastern Australia

2019· article· en· W2984380912 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Lowe, James Reid, Eric Battig, Scott Napier, Dan Eremenco

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMira Geoscience (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalGeologyDrillingMining engineeringMineralogyInversion (geology)Structural basinPaleontologyMaterials scienceEngineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryIn coal mining it is important to know if localised areas of coal have been rendered worthless through direct contact with volcanic intrusions. To avoid dilution, accurate coked coal boundaries are traditionally mapped by drilling.BHP has made significant strides in applying geophysical methods to add value at its coal operations. With respect to the mapping of coked coal BHP have tried a suite of electromagnetic and electrical methods; enjoying success at improving the resolution of coked coal boundaries with significant implications on the amount of drilling required.Recent trials of moving loop and airborne transient electromagnetic (TEM), Sub-audio magnetic (SAM), electrical resistivity imaging (ERI) and induced polarisation (IP) have encouraged the company to ramp up the inclusion of more TEM in its 5-year operational plans.Unconstrained 1D inversion of moving loop TEM data correlated well to drilled intersections of coked coal. This enabled an improved coked coal boundary to be mapped.An interesting observation is contrary conductivity sections obtained from moving loop TEM and ERI, with the latter method failing to identify the strong conductive layer mapped in both TEM and drilling. Possible conductivity anisotropy of the coked coal or the overlying sediments is being considered as a likely explanation for the failure of ERI to map the coked coal.Inversion of SAM TFEM data partially worked to map the coked coal but only when constrained by the TEM inversion results.The signal to noise ratio in the IP data proved to render the data uninterpretable, suggesting that the coked coal is not chargeable, with the graphite being in massive rather than disseminated form.It is concluded that moving loop TEM and helicopter TEM both efficiently map coked coal sufficiently to target reduced drilling programs. Hence, where scales are appropriate, helicopter surveying is ideal to maximise efficiency without compromising resolution or results.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.299
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207