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, which is widely used in the industry and has resulted in 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 difficulties associated with visually identifying the predominantly small gold grains. These limitations hinder its capacity to decipher subtle or complex signals. To improve detection limits through the recovery of small gold grains, a new approach has recently been introduced into the industry, which is commercially referred to as the “ARTGold” procedure. This procedure involves the use of an optimized miniature sluice box coupled with an automated scanning electron microscopy routine. The capabilities of this improved method were highlighted in this study 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 that with the conventional approach, the improved method increased the recovery of gold grains from samples (regional and down-ice mineralization) by almost one order of magnitude. (regional and down-ice mineralization), dominantly in regard of the small size fractions. Increasing the counts in low-abundance regional samples allows for a better discrimination between background signals and significant dispersions. The described method offers an alternative for improving the characterization of gold dispersal in glaciated terrain and 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 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 | 0.014 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
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".