Study of the Influence of Non-Deposit Locations in Data-Driven Mineral Prospectivity Mapping: A Case Study on the Iskut Project in Northwestern British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The accuracy of data-driven predictive mineral prospectivity models relies heavily on the training datasets used. These models are usually trained using data for “known” deposit locations as well as “non-deposit” locations that are based on randomly generated point patterns. In this study, data related to the Seabridge Gold Inc Iskut project, an epithermal Au deposit in northwestern British Columbia (BC), Canada, are used to test the utility of data-driven mineral prospectivity modeling. The input spatial dataset is comprised mostly of publicly available data. Data for 18 vein and epithermal Au known mineral occurrences (KMO) are obtained from the BC Geological Survey’s MINFILE repository and selected as training deposit locations. A total of eleven sets of non-deposit locations (NDL) were also created, including one set of selected non-prospective KMO for Au deposits from the MINFILE and ten sets of random point patterns. Given the scale of this study, most of the KMO recorded on the property are of the epithermal deposit type. Hence, they could not be used as a selection criterion. Data-driven mineral potential models are generated using the random forest (RF) algorithm and trained on multiple data sets. The comparison of RF models demonstrated that using non-prospective KMO generates more accurate predictions than the random point pattern. The produced mineral prospectivity maps delineated multiple areas with higher discovery potential, which matched viable targets for the Au-Cu epithermal-porphyry system identified through previous Seabridge Gold Inc. (Toronto, ON, Canada) field reconnaissance and drilling programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".