A Random Forest approach to predict geology from geophysics in the Pontiac subprovince, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current “visual” integration approaches to map geology from geophysics are challenging, biased toward user assumptions, and time consuming. Applying a supervised machine learning Random Forest method to airborne geophysical data sets is an alternative solution to quickly generate interpretative maps, which can later be validated through targeted and therefore more efficient field campaigns. The approach is tested in the Malartic–Cadillac area of the Pontiac subprovince, Canada. Available airborne geophysical data sets include magnetic, frequency-domain electromagnetic, and radiometric data. Unlike the western part of the area, many studies have been done in the eastern part where the world-class Canadian Malartic gold deposit is located. The eastern part has abundant field observations and well-documented geology that are used as training data for Random Forest learning. A predicted map is built after preprocessing the data, gridding the area into a mesh of nodes and training using known geological knowledge. The results provide new information about the spatial distribution of lithological units, including diabase dikes, felsic-intermediate igneous rocks, mafic–ultramafic igneous rocks, and sedimentary rocks. Comparison between the predicted map and previous geological maps could suggest locations where future field mapping efforts should focus in the Malartic–Cadillac area.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".