Automated Gold Grain Counting. Part 1: Why Counts Matter!
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The quantitative and qualitative assessment of gold grains from samples of glacial till is a well-established method for exploring gold deposits hidden under glaciated cover. This method, widely used by the industry and which produced numerous successes in locating gold deposits in glaciated terrain, is still based on artisanal gravity separation techniques and visual identification. However, being artisanal, it is limited by inconsistent recoveries and the difficulty to visually identify the predominantly occurring small gold grains. These limitations hinder its capability to deceipher subtle or complex signal. To improve detection limits through recovery of small gold grains, a new approach has recently been introduced in the industry (commercially referred as “ARTGold” procedure) using an optimized miniature sluice box coupled with an automated scanning electron microscopy routine. The capabilities of this improved method are highlighted by comparing till surveys conducted around the Borden gold deposit (Ontario, Canada) using the conventional and improved methods at both local and regional scales. Relative to the conventional approach, the improved method recovered almost one order of magnitude more gold grains from samples (regional and down-ice mineralization), dominantly in small size fractions. Increasing the counts in low-abundance regional samples enables better discrimination between background signals and significant dispersions. The method offers an alternative to improve characterization of gold dispersal in glaciated terrain and the related gold deposit footprints.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".