MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3129126025 · doi:10.51710/jias.v37i2.73

Potentiality of Uranium Mineralisation in the Environs of Chhattisgarh Basin, India: a new occurrence in Chhibra

2020· article· en· W3129126025 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ashim Jana

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Association of Sedimentologists · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProterozoicGeologyStructural basinUraniumUnconformityGeochemistryBasementUranium orePrecambrianSiliciclasticGeomorphologyArchaeologyGeographyPaleontologySedimentary depositional environmentTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Meso-Proterozoic intracratonic basins are known for hosting medium to high grade, large tonnage, low cost unconformity-type uranium deposits in the world like-Athabasca Basin, Saskatchewan, Canada and the Pine Creek Geosyncline, Northern Territory, Australia. Similarly, there are fourteen Proterozoic basins in India, out of which, the unconformity-related uranium deposits are identified at Lambapur-Yellapur-Chitrial in the northern part of the Cuddapah basin. Based on the geological setting, age and fertile basement provenance, the other Proterozoic basins in India also hold promise for uranium mineralisation. In this context, the Chhattisgarh basin which is third largest Proterozoic basin in Central India occupying an area of 33,000 sq. km. with 2500m thick sediments, is identified as one of the major favourable targets for uranium mineralisation. It is located at the northern fringe of Bastar Craton in parts of Odisha and Chhattisgarh and comprises mostly siliciclastic sediments of Singhora, Chandrapur and Raipur Groups. Uranium exploration carried out in the environs of Chhattisgarh basin mostly along the basin margins, have brought to light a number of uranium occurrences having sizeable dimensions hosted by both the basement rocks viz. Malaikhaman (0.026-0.11% U3O8), Makarumunda (0.013-3.3% U3O8), Damdama (0.026-0.43% U3O8) , Kashipali (0.010-0.96% U3O8), Karichhapar (0.011-0.40% U3O8) and the cover sediments viz. Juba-Banjhapali (0.010-0.078% U3O8), Govardhangiri-Bagia Nala (<0.010-0.80% U3O8), Chitakhol-Renkhol-Bokarda (<0.012-0.39% U3O8). The newly located uranium mineralisation in the sandstones of Rehatikhol Formation near Chhibra which is exposed intermittently over a strike length of 800m with grab samples (n=43) physically assayed 0.014 to 0.140% eU3O8, 0.010 to 0.120% U3O8 (β/γ) and <0.005% ThO2. Uraninite and pitchblende have been identified as uranium minerals. The favourable factors like geological, geochemical, geophysical, sedimentological, tectonic framework and presence of fertile granitic rocks (n=33, 5-26ppm U) in the provenance indicate its potentiality for uranium mineralisation. The exploration so far, has been mostly confined around shallow basin margins leaving deeper part unexplored. With the advancement of geophysical techniques like airborne magnetic, radiometric and electromagnetic surveys it would be possible to explore the deeper part of the basin. In addition, geochemical techniques such as hydro and litho-geochemical sampling could also be applied around suitable litho-structural settings, especially along the shear/fault zones trending NNE-SSW to NW-SE and their intersections with the ENE-WSW trending shear/fault zones. The present paper deals with the potentiality of uranium mineralisation in the environs of Chhattisgarh basin with emphasis on recently located significant occurrence of uranium mineralisation near Chhibra in the Rehatikhol Formation of Singhora Group along the southeastern margin of Chhattisgarh basin.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Association of Sedimentologists→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→