MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3183115716 · doi:10.1071/aj20194

Structural interpretation of the Beetaloo Sub-basin, NT from nonseismic geophysical data

2021· article· en· W3183115716 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Markov, Claudio Delle Piane, Ernest Swierczek, Clive Foss, Mohinudeen Faiz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe APPEA Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological Formations and Processes Exploration
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyPetrophysicsStructural basinRidgeHydrocarbon explorationSuiteKarstMagnetotelluricsBasaltRegional geologyGeophysicsSeismologyGeomorphologyPetrologyGeochemistryPaleontologyMetamorphic petrologyElectrical resistivity and conductivityTectonicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Beetaloo Sub-basin is known for its vast unconventional hydrocarbon resources even though it is relatively underexplored. There is reasonably good coverage of 2D seismic within the sub-basin which is used as the basis for most structural interpretations. However, seismic quality varies, and it is occasionally deteriorated by the presence of basalts from the Kalkarindji suite and the karstic nature of the Gum Ridge formation. Aeromagnetic data, constrained by petrophysical logs are used, to map faults in the basalts of the Kalkarindji suite and their lateral extent to the South and the East of the sub-basin. The same structural elements are identified in the full tensor gravity gradiometry data. The top of this unit is observed in the electrical conductivity profiles, derived from Tempest data, in the NW part of the eastern sub-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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.119

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe APPEA JournalSame topicGeological Formations and Processes ExplorationFrench-language works237,207