Natural Field Airborne Electromagnetics—History of Development and Current Exploration Capabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mineral resources exploration industry continuously expands the efficiency requirements for geophysical technologies. Due to their relatively inexpensive nature, coupled with the ability to rapidly acquire data over large areas, airborne electromagnetic technologies have been used for decades in subsurface exploration. Limitations on the depth of investigation of airborne platforms with controlled primary field sources is the main obstacle for using these systems in many geoelectrical conditions and geographical terrains. In addition, systems based on the time-domain principle are limited in applications requiring differentiations in a high resistivity range of the mapping parameter and suffer from parasitic electromagnetic non inductive natural effects in specific near surface conditions. Methods exploiting natural electromagnetic fields in the audio frequency range significantly increase depth of investigation and sensitivity to a wide range of resistivity contrasts including in the range of thousands of ohm-ms. A brief history of the development of the natural field airborne technology is provided accompanied by a comparison of the systems technical specifications. Field examples from the latest development in the airborne electromagnetic natural fields’ domain, MobileMT, demonstrate its exploration capabilities in both conductive and resistive environments, sensitivity to any direction of geoelectrical boundary, and detectability of near-surface discrete targets along with deeper structures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".