World mineral deposits in the table of periodic chemical elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The distribution of mineral deposits and the distribution of chemical elements on the globe are characterized by heterogeneity. A wide range of publications of domestic and foreign specialists - geologists, geographers, geochemists, economists - were dedicated to mineral resources of the world, mineral deposits. During processing the material the comparative-geographical, cartographic (analysis of minerals maps, mineral resources in the context of continents and regions of the world, cartographic interpretation of Mendeleev periodical table), monographic (analysis of fundamental works of leading domestic and foreign geologists and resource scientists, geologists and geologists, and geologists and geologists) directories, multi-volume editions devoted to geology and mineral resources of individual countries and regions of the world) methods, systematic approach, and GIS technologies - all these were used for received data processing and systematization. Explored mineral deposits (current and potential) form on the planet both individual local deposits and geochemical zones – areas where economically valuable chemical elements and their compounds are concentrated, which are diverse in genesis, stocks, and possibilities of exploitation. The largest of the latter is the Appalachians in the US - the Western Hemisphere, the Highveld in South Africa, Khibiny and the Ural Mountains inRussia - the Eastern Hemisphere. The leading countries in which most geochemical resources are extracted from the subsoil are the United States (65% of the total elements of Mendeleev periodical table), Russia (48%), China (38%), Canada (38%), South Africa (30%), Australia, (27%), Kazakhstan (19%), India (14%), Mexico (13%). The ideas about the level of provision of mineral resources and minerals in individual countries and territories of the world were systematized. The Mendeleev periodical table and its mineral and raw content were presented as an objective factor in the international geographical distribution of labor. The illuminated issues are confirmed high density of interdisciplinary links (geology, geography, chemistry, geochemistry, ecology, economics, regional studies, zoning).
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.056 | 0.022 |
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".