MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

3D interpretation of geological, 3D seismic and conventional geophysical data from the Darlot Gold Mine

2019· article· en· W2987197785 on OpenAlexaff
Glenn Pears, James Reid, John McGaughey, Will Turner, Graeme Hird

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Modeling and Analysis
Canadian institutionsMira Geoscience (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyYilgarn CratonPetrophysicsArcheanGeophysicsInterpretation (philosophy)TerrainGreenstone beltGeophysical imagingSeismologyCratonGeochemistryTectonicsCartographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SummaryThe Darlot gold mine is an Archean orogenic deposit located in the world-class gold and nickel terrain of the Yandal granite-greenstone belt, part of the Yilgarn Craton in Western Australia.A 3D seismic survey centred on the Darlot-Centenary mineralised system was acquired in 2016-2017 with the objective of improving lithological and structural interpretation, and to generally extend understanding of the Darlot 3D mineralised system to support targeting.The capability of modern 3D seismic surveys to image formational contacts and structures in hardrock environments can have a game-changing impact on the effectiveness of brownfields exploration programs because the geometry of mineralised systems can be directly imaged over large volumes of ground. Furthermore, because the formational and structural geometry revealed by 3D seismic also provides the primary control on the physical property variations that magnetic, gravity, and electrical or EM methods respond to, seismic interpretation provides ideal constraints and guidance on the interpretation of other geophysical data. This is particularly valuable when an objective of geophysical interpretation is imaging of second-order controls on physical property variation, such as the effects of alteration.We present the preliminary results of an an integrated geological, petrophysical, seismic and non-seismic geophysical program to effectively support brownfields targeting in hardrock environments.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeological Modeling and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207