MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210487834 · doi:10.1071/aseg2006ab136

The Contribution of Magnetite to the Induced Polarisation Response of the Centenary Orebody

2006· article· en· W4210487834 on OpenAlexafffund
Karen Pittard, Barry Bourne

Bibliographic record

VenueASEG Extended Abstracts · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsBarrick Gold (Canada)
FundersBarrick Gold Corporation
KeywordsPyriteMagnetitePetrophysicsGeologyMagnetic anomalyMineralogyGeochemistryPorosityGeophysicsGeotechnical engineeringPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Centenary gold deposit is a concealed ore body containing over 2 million ounces of gold, located 80 km east of Leinster. The orebody is associated with sulphides and is hosted in the magnetic portion of the Mount Pickering dolerite. Due to its sulphidic nature, both gravity and IP were trialled soon after discovery.The gravity showed major structures and delineated the magnetic dolerite, and a trial IP survey detected a significant chargeability anomaly over Centenary. Interestingly, the anomaly was broader than, and slightly displaced from, mineralisation. An honours study commenced to determine whether magnetite contributed to the chargeability response of the Centenary ore body, as historical petrophysics had suggested magnetic dolerite proximal to the ore body may be chargeableThe petrophysical study, integrated with the examination of thin sections, found that the five samples giving the highest chargeability response contained at least 5% pyrite and 5% magnetite, and at least 15% magnetite and pyrite combined. Samples with comparable amounts of pyrite, but less magnetite, gave lower chargeabilities. This supported a hypothesis that rocks containing both magnetite and pyrite at Centenary generate a larger IP response than rocks containing pyrite or magnetite alone.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.791
Threshold uncertainty score0.186

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASEG Extended AbstractsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207