MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

RESOLVING THE AERO ELECTROMAGNETIC (AEM) AND AEROMAGNETIC SIGNATURE OF THE BRUNSWICK NO 12 SULPHIDE DEPOSIT FROM ADJACENT FORMATIONAL ANOMALIES

2017· article· en· W4254905060 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Vanessa Biondo Ribeiro, Marta Sílvia Maria Mantovani

Bibliographic record

VenueEstudos Geológicos · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyClassification of discontinuitiesMagnetic anomalyBasaltGeophysicsDiscontinuity (linguistics)Magnetic surveySedimentary rockSignature (topology)GeochemistryMineralogySeismologyGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bathurst Mining Camp (BMC), Canada, hosts 46 volcanogenic-sedimentary massive sulphide deposits (VHMS), including the world-class Brunswick No. 12 deposit. The magnetic signature of this deposit is masked by the magnetic response of a nearby basaltic formation. A reliable 3D model may contribute significantly to a better understanding of the nature of the Brunswick No. 12 deposit at depth and provide an important vector for exploration. Locally abundant pyrrhotite in the deposit generates a strong magnetic anomaly. 3D modeling of the magnetic data using the geological and drill hole data available in the literature as constraints produced a model that could be compared with previously established geological models. This comparison pointed to a very good correlation of the vertical behavior of the 3D model with a previously derived geological section. Although continuous at depth, the model displays differences between the northern and southern portions of the upper region of the body. This “bifurcate” aspect is consistent with the presence of two magnetic anomalies associated with the deposit. Independent geological interpretations of the sulphide body indicate a greater discontinuity of the body in the E-W direction compared to N-S discontinuities in the magnetic model. The magnetic model was then compared with the deposit aero electromagnetic (AEM) signature, which also indicated a bifurcation between the northern and southern portions. The correlation of the interpretation of two geophysical methods based on very different physical properties helps to confirm the reliability of the 3D model obtained. The results of this study contribute to a better characterization of the geophysical signatures associated with the Brunswick No. 12 deposit and help understanding its petrophysical composition. The geophysical characteristics provide a benchmark for comparison with other (partially) masked anomalies in BMC area or elsewhere.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.213
Threshold uncertainty score0.424

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.166 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEstudos GeológicosSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207