MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3191807516 · doi:10.3390/min11080859

ECORE: A New Fast Automated Quantitative Mineral and Elemental Core Scanner

2021· article· en· W3191807516 on OpenAlexafffund
Marie-Chloé Michaud Paradis, François R. Doucet, Kheireddine Rifaï, Lütfü Ç. Özcan, Nawfel Azami, François Vidal

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasma
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersMitacs
KeywordsHyperspectral imagingScannerElemental analysisChemical imagingLaser-induced breakdown spectroscopyScanning electron microscopeSpectroscopyRemote sensingMineralogyResolution (logic)Materials scienceOpticsGeologyChemistryComputer sciencePhysicsLaserArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Scarce platinum group elements (PGE) are mainly concealed in massive sulfides, and finding economically viable ore bodies largely relies on their fast chemical mapping. Most core scanners provide incomplete mineralogical contents, but none also provide a complete chemical analysis including light elements. This study investigates the performance of a fully automated laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS) core scanner, the ECORE, by comparing its reliability to a scanning electron microscope-energy dispersive spectroscopy (SEM-EDS) mineral mapper and its speed to infrared diffuse reflectance hyperspectral imagers (IR-HSI). The LIBS elemental imaging has been put to the test in our previous work, as well as the high-resolution mineralogical mapping. This paper reports the scaling up analytical applicability of LIBS as a high performance and high-speed drill core scanner. The analysis of a full core tray in this study is the first and largest 7.62 megapixels image done by a LIBS core scanner to our knowledge. Both high-resolution and low-resolution data are put together to express both mineralogical and chemical content as a function of depth.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.280
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicLaser-induced spectroscopy and plasmaFrench-language works237,207