MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184272043 · doi:10.1190/geo2020-0657.1

3D electromagnetic modeling of graphitic faults in the Athabasca Basin using a finite-volume time-domain approach with unstructured grids

2021· article· en· W3184272043 on OpenAlexaffabout
Xushan Lu, Colin G. Farquharson, Jean-Marc Miehé, Grant Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsiNano Medical (Canada)Memorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyDiscretizationFault (geology)Electrical conductorConductorDrillingProcess (computing)Structural basinTime domainHydrogeologyGeophysicsComputer scienceSeismologyGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologyGeometryEngineeringMechanical engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Uranium exploration in the Athabasca Basin, Canada, relies heavily on ground-based transient electromagnetic (TEM) surveys to target thin, steeply dipping graphitic conductors that are often closely related to the uranium ore deposits. The interpretation of TEM data is important in identifying the locations and trends of conductors to guide subsequent drilling campaigns. We develop a trial-and-error modeling approach and demonstrate its application to the interpretation of a data set acquired at the Close Lake in the Athabasca Basin. The modeling process has two key tasks: building geoelectric models and computing their TEM responses. The modeling process is repeated with the geoelectric model being iteratively refined based on the match between three-component calculated and measured data from early to late times. To create geoelectric models, we first build a realistic geologic model and discretize it using an unstructured tetrahedral mesh, with each mesh cell populated with appropriate resistivities. To calculate the TEM responses of the geoelectric model, we use a 3D finite-volume time-domain algorithm. We construct our initial model based on existing geologic information and drilling data. We find that this modeling process is flexible and can easily handle thin, steeply dipping conductive graphitic fault models with variable resistivities in the fault and background and with topography. Our interpretation of the Close Lake data matches well with the trend and location of the main conductor as revealed by drilling data and also confirms the existence of a smaller conductor that only caused noticeable anomalous responses in early-time horizontal-component data. The smaller conductor was suggested by previous electromagnetic data but was missed in a recent interpretation based on the modeling of only late-time vertical-component data with plate-based approximate modeling methods.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysicsSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207