MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994262534 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.12914

High‐resolution unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic surveys for mineral exploration targets

2019· article· en· W2994262534 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Callum Walter, Alexander Braun, G. Fotopoulos

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityGeological Survey of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsSociety of Economic Geologists Canada Foundation
KeywordsAeromagnetic surveyGeologyRemote sensingMagnetometerTerrainAerial surveyMagnetic surveyGeodesyMagnetic anomalyGeophysicsMagnetic fieldGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Recent advancements in geophysical exploration have been realized through reliably integrating unmanned aerial vehicle platforms with lightweight, high‐resolution magnetometer payloads. Unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic surveys can provide a contemporary data product between the two end‐members of coverage and resolution attained using manned airborne and terrestrial magnetic surveys. This new data product is achievable because unmanned aerial vehicle platforms can safely traverse with magnetometer payloads at flight elevations closer to ground targets than manned airborne surveys, while also delivering an increased coverage rate compared to walking conventional terrestrial surveys. This is a promising new development for geophysical and mineral exploration applications, especially in variable terrains. A three‐dimensional unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic survey was conducted within the Shebandowan Greenstone Belt, northwest of Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, in July 2017. A series of two‐dimensional grids (∼500 m × 700 m) were flown at approximate elevations of 35, 45 and 70 m above ground level using a Dà‐Jiāng Innovations multi‐rotor unmanned aerial vehicle (S900) and a GEM Systems, Inc., Potassium Vapour Magnetometer (GSMP‐35U). In total, over 48 line‐km of unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic data were flown with a line spacing of 25 m. The collected aeromagnetic data were compared to a regional heliborne aeromagnetic survey flown at an elevation of approximately 85 m above the terrain, with a line spacing of 100 m, as well as a follow‐up terrestrial magnetic survey. The first vertical derivative of the gathered unmanned aerial vehicle total magnetic field data was calculated both directly between each of the different flight elevations, and indirectly by calculating the values predicted using upward continuation. This case study demonstrates that low flight elevation unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic surveys can reliably collect industry standard total magnetic field measurements at an increased resolution when compared to manned airborne magnetic surveys. The enhanced interpretation potential provided by this approach also aided in delineating structural controls and hydrothermal fluid migration pathways (a pair of adjacent shear zones) related to gold mineralization on site. These structural features were not clearly resolved in the regional manned airborne magnetic data alone, further demonstrating the utility of applying high‐resolution unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic surveys to mineral exploration applications. The conclusions and interpretations drawn from the unmanned aerial vehicle aeromagnetic data, coupled with historical data, were applied to make a new gold mineralization discovery on the site, assayed at 15.7 g/t.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations115
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207