Application of surficial exploration methods in the Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Lake Timiskaming kimberlite field is 80 km south of the Kirkland Lake kimberlite field in northeastern Ontario (Fig. 1) and contains 15 kimberlite pipes emplaced between 134 and 155 Ma along the broadly northwest trending Lake Timiskaming Structural Zone.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.Armstrong and McCracken (1996) estimated on the basis of crustal xenoliths found in the kimberlites that the present land surface was covered by an additional 700 m of Paleozoic carbonate sedimentary rocks at the time of emplacement.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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".