Minerals and ore deposits exploration using meta-heuristic based optimization on magnetic data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The difficulties in unravelling the tectonic structures, in some cases, prevent the understanding of the ore bodies' geometry, leading to mistakes in mineral exploration, mine planning, evaluation of ore deposits, and even mineral exploitation. For that reason, many geophysical techniques are introduced to reveal the type, dimension, and geometry of these structures. Among them, electric methods, self-potential, electromagnetic, magnetic and gravity methods. Global meta-heuristic technique using Whale Optimization Algorithm (WOA) has been utilized for assessing model parameters from magnetic anomalies due to a thin dike, a dipping dike, and a vertical fault like/shear zone geological structure. These structures are commonly associated with mineralization. This modern algorithm was firstly applied on a free-noise synthetic data and to a noisy data with three different levels of random noise to simulate natural and artificial anomaly disturbances. Good results obtained through the inversion of such synthetic examples prove the validity and applicability of our algorithm. Thereafter, the method is applied to real case studies taken from different ore mineralization resembling different geologic conditions. Data are taken from Canada, United States, Sweden, Peru, India, and Australia. The obtained results revealed good correlation with previous interpretations of these real field examples.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".