MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4239240407 · doi:10.29173/ikc3198

Application of surficial exploration methods in the Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field, Canada

2019· article· en· W4239240407 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Kimberlite Conference Extended Abstracts: 2003 · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsHudbay Minerals (Canada)Geological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKimberliteGeologyField (mathematics)GeomorphologyGeochemistryHydrology (agriculture)Geotechnical engineeringMantle (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field is 80 km south of the Kirkland Lake kimberlite field in northeastern Ontario (Fig. The most common kimberlite facies found in the pipes are tuffisitic kimberlite breccia and hypabyssal kimberlite, indicating that they have been eroded to the diatreme and root zones, comparable to kimberlite pipes in the Kimberley region of South Africa. They penetrate various lithologies of the Archean Abitibi Greenstone Belt and overlying Paleoproterozoic sedimentary rocks. Most bedrock in the region is covered by glacial sediments ranging in thickness from a few to 40 m. Kimberlite, being relatively soft, was differentially eroded by preglacial weathering and glacial scouring and can subcrop up to 20 m below the surrounding bedrock surface. Subsequently, most Lake Timiskaming kimberlites were covered by Quaternary age glacial sediments and have no surface expression.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.938
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.273 · 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