MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029770114 · doi:10.34194/ggub.v189.5160

The Nalunaq gold prospect, South Greenland: test mining for feasibility studies

2001· article· en· W3029770114 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mogens Lind, Lotte Kludt, Brian Ballou

Bibliographic record

VenueGeology of Greenland Survey Bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrewFjordCorporationSample (material)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementEngineeringOceanographyEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringArchaeologyGeologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nalunaq narrow-vein gold prospect is situated 40 km north-east of Nanortalik, the southernmost town in Greenland, 6 km inland from the fjord Saqqaa (Fig. 1). The exploration licence is held by Nalunaq I/S, a company jointly owned by Crew Development Corporation, Canada (67%) and NunaMinerals A/S, Greenland (33%). A pre-feasibility study of March 1999 by an independent mining consulting company commented positively on the Nalunaq prospect (Nalunaq I/S, personal communication 1999). However, assessment of the sample database demonstrated considerable variation in grade estimates depending on the use of drillcores, chip or saw-cut samples as well as the capping levels (reducing the highest assay values to a fixed value). To advance this project to the feasibility level, the pre-feasibility study stressed the need for improved grade verification and demonstration of grade continuity.
 In preparation for a feasibility study, a Can$ 9 million underground test mining and bulk sampling programme was executed during the summer 2000 field season. Strathcona Mineral Services Limited (Canada) designed the programme in conjunction with Nalunaq personnel. This report focuses on the field aspects of the programme; processing of field and laboratory data is still in progress (January 2001).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.224 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeology of Greenland Survey BulletinSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207