Evidential data integration to produce porphyry Cu prospectivity map, using a combination of knowledge and data‐driven methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it