MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4291754869 · doi:10.1190/image2022-3739311.1

3D inversion of QMAGT airborne magnetic gradiometry data for susceptibility and magnetization vector models of the Thompson Nickel Belt in Manitoba, Canada

2022· article· en· W4291754869 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael R. Jorgensen, Michael S. Zhdanov, Brian Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueSecond International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & Energy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMagnetizationNickelInversion (geology)GeologyGeophysicsRemote sensingGeodesyMaterials scienceSeismologyPhysicsMagnetic fieldMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following recent advances in SQUID technology, full tensor magnetic gradiometry (FTMG) is emerging as a practical exploration method. We introduce 3D regularized focusing inversion based on the Gramian regularization and moving sensitivity domain to interpret the FTMG data efficiently. A helicopter-borne QMAGT full tensor magnetic gradiometry (FTMG) survey was conducted over the Thompson Nickel Belt by Dias Airborne contracted by Vale Canada LTD. This project aimed to study the location and structure of the P2 member sulfidic meta sedimentary rocks of the Paleoproterozoic Ospwagan Group hosting the Mystery ultramafic intrusion and the associated Ni sulfide mineralization proximal to the survey area. The observed FTMG and calculated total magnetic intensity (TMI) data were analyzed and inverted separately using the developed 3D inversion methods. The data were inverted for susceptibility and magnetization vector models. This is one of the first papers to present the applied inversion of FTMG data towards a magnetization vector model. We also present a comparison of the inversions using the FTMG data and the calculated TMI data.

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 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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.773
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSecond International Meeting for Applied Geoscience & EnergySame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207