MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206249676 · doi:10.1086/717847

Application of Machine-Learning Algorithms to the Stratigraphic Correlation of Archean Shale Units Based on Lithogeochemistry

2021· article· en· W4206249676 on OpenAlexaff
Steven E. Zhang, Glen T. Nwaila, Julie E. Bourdeau, Hartwig E. Frimmel, Yousef Ghorbani, Riham Elhabyan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Geology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysis
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcheanGeologyOil shaleCratonAlgorithmGreenstone beltCluster analysisMachine learningArtificial intelligenceGeochemistryComputer sciencePaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data-driven methods have increasingly been applied to solve geoscientific problems. Incorporation of data-driven methods with hypothesis testing can be effective to address some long-standing debates and reduce interpretation uncertainty by leveraging larger volumes of data and more objective data analytics, which leads to increased reproducibility. In this study, lithogeochemical data from regionally persistent Archean shale units were aggregated from literature, with special reference to the Kaapvaal Craton of South Africa—namely, shales from the Barberton, Witwatersrand, Pongola, and Transvaal Supergroups—and the Belingwe and Buhwa Greenstone Belts of the Zimbabwe Craton. We examine the feasibility of using machine-learning algorithms to produce a geochemical classification and demonstrate that machine learning is capable of accurately correlating stratigraphy at the formation, group, and supergroup levels. We demonstrate the ability to extract highly useful scientific findings through a data-driven approach, such as geological implications for the uniqueness of the sediment compositions of the Central Rand and West Rand Groups. We further demonstrate that when lithogeochemistry and machine-learning algorithms are used, only about 50 samples per geological unit are necessary to reach accuracy levels of around 80%–90% for our shale samples. Consequently, for many traditional tasks, such as rock identification and mapping, some expensive analyses and manual labor can be replaced by an abundance of cheaper data and machine learning. This approach could transform large-scale geological surveys by enabling more detailed mapping than currently possible, by vastly increasing the coverage rate and total coverage. In addition, the aggregation of historical data facilitates data reuse and open science. These results justify the need to bridge data- and hypothesis-driven techniques for the stratigraphic correlation and prediction of rock units, which can improve the accuracy of the inferred stratigraphic correlation and basin setting.

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 score0.299
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of GeologySame topicHydrocarbon exploration and reservoir analysisFrench-language works237,207