MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3217394615 · doi:10.1111/1365-2478.13169

Evidential data integration to produce porphyry Cu prospectivity map, using a combination of knowledge and data‐driven methods

2021· article· en· W3217394615 on OpenAlexaff
Shokouh Riahi, Abbas Bahroudi, Maysam Abedi, Soheila Aslani, David R. Lentz

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProspectivity mappingMineral explorationGeologyMineral resource classificationMineralization (soil science)Mineral depositEconomic geologyOverlayPorphyry copper depositData miningGeochemistryHydrogeologyComputer scienceHydrothermal circulationGeomorphologySoil scienceSeismology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Producing an accurate and valid mineral prospectivity map is one of the most significant parts of mineral exploration studies. For this purpose, it is needed to obtain valid evidential layers and integrate them with an accurate methodology. Knowledge and data‐driven methods are two primary techniques applied to combine various evidential layers for mineral prospectivity mapping, of which each of them includes a variety of analytical techniques. In this study, in the first step, satellite data, aeromagnetic and airborne radiometric data, stream sediment geochemical data and geological data were applied to create valid remote sensing, geophysical, geochemical, lineaments and lithological evidential layers of the study area that are an essential factor in recognition porphyry copper mineralization, then in the second step, based on the known mineralization occurrences data, the evidential layers were weighted. Finally, these layers were integrated using fuzzy logic and index overlay methods in a combination of knowledge and data‐driven way. Validation of each layer was done using available data in the second step. The final mineral prospectivity map was evaluated, and the confirmation of this layer detected that the final mineral prospectivity map obtained from data‐driven multi‐index overlay method has a higher ore prediction rate of 76%, which identifies 24% of the area as potential zones for further exploration.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical ProspectingSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207