MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195658587 · doi:10.5382/segnews.2007-69.fea

Metamorphic Gradient: A Regional-Scale Area Selection Criterion for Gold in the Northeastern Superior Province, Eastern Canadian Shield

2007· article· en· W3195658587 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michel Gauthier, Sylvain Trépanier, S. J. Gardoll

Bibliographic record

VenueSEG Discovery · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamorphic rockGeologyArcheanGreenstone beltGeochemistryCratonShieldScale (ratio)PetrologySeismologyCartographyTectonicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT One hundred years after the first gold discoveries in the Abitibi subprovince, the Archean James Bay region to the north is experiencing a major exploration boom. Poor geologic coverage in this part of the northeastern Superior province has hindered the application of traditional Abitibi exploration criteria such as crustal-scale faults and “Timiskaming-type” sedimentary rocks. New area selection criteria are needed for successful greenfield exploration in this frontier region, and the use of steep metamorphic gradients is presented as a possible alternative. The statistical robustness of the metamorphic gradient area selection criterion was confirmed by using the curve of the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) to estimate the correlation between metamorphic fronts and the distribution of known Abitibi orogenic gold producers. The criterion was then applied to the James Bay region during a first-pass craton-scale exploration program. This was part of the strategy that led to the discovery of the Eleonore multimillion-ounce gold deposit in 2004.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSEG DiscoverySame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207