“Reasonable prospects” in mineral resource estimation and reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A fundamental component of the Definition Standards for Mineral Resources is the requirement that the material have “reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction” (RPEEE). The first adoption of the RPEEE requirement by a widespread group was in 1997 as part of the Denver Accord meeting and has since become an international standard. Mineral resource statements are prepared for mineral properties that are at various stages in the mining cycle, from the discovery stage through to the production stage. The confidence level of information available for the development of the input parameters for the technical and economic components of RPEEE varies greatly among stages. Consequently, the RPEEE assumptions may evolve with the stage of the mineral property as well. The economic aspects of RPEEE are commonly achieved by selecting appropriate input parameters for establishing a cut-off grade. The technical aspects can include consideration of such items as minimum widths, spatial continuity, and the application of appropriate constraining surfaces and volumes. In all cases, the responsibility of ensuring that the mineral resource statements are prepared in accordance with the requirements of the Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum Definition Standards ultimately resides with the qualified person.
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 | 0.122 | 0.322 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.008 |
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".