A comparison of MobileMT with ZTEM and HELITEM over isolated conductors in the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MobileMT is a relatively new heliborne natural field electromagnetic (NFEM) system which measures the magnetic field response due to telluric currents in the 30 Hz to 20 kHz range. By comparison, the ZTEM NFEM system, in commercial use for more than a decade, operates in a range from 22 Hz to 720 Hz. The HELITEM active source heliborne time-domain electromagnetic (HEM) system is a variant of the concentric-loop configuration (like VTEM and SkyTEM) commonly used on mineral exploration projects. Both ZTEM and HELITEM represent good standards for comparison against any new airborne electromagnetic (EM) technology. We examine data from recent surveys using all three of these systems in a common study area. The study area contains a series of linear conductors in a relatively resistive host, close to the margin of the Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada. The surveys were completed on identical or nearly identical flight lines oriented approximately perpendicular to the strike of the conductors. The MobileMT responses and inverted conductivity results are compared with those from ZTEM and HELITEM at a variety of depths to examine the system performance. The MobileMT and ZTEM apparent conductivity results are found to be very similar at common frequencies. Presentation Date: Wednesday, October 14, 2020 Session Start Time: 8:30 AM Presentation Time: 10:35 AM Location: 351D Presentation Type: Oral
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".