A comparison of airborne geophysical data over two magmatic nickel deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Historical exploration for economic nickel (Ni) mineralization has often targeted magmatic sulfide deposits in extensional settings. However, convergent-margin-hosted Alaskan-type complexes represent a potentially underexplored source of Ni. Case studies of the geophysical responses associated with two magmatic Ni deposits (one is typical, and one is associated with an Alaskan-type complex) are presented, and the results are compared. Data were assessed from historical and newly acquired airborne geophysical surveys that were collected over the Mayville property in southeast Manitoba and the Turnagain property in northern British Columbia. The properties were explored by Mustang Minerals Corporation and Giga Metals Corporation, respectively. Airborne electromagnetic (EM) and magnetic data were utilized to compare the two properties and the mineralized zones. The review showed that the Mayville magmatic sulfide deposit was directly detectible with EM methods, and the passive and active-source methods were complementary to one another. The EM data did not directly detect the Turnagain Alaskan-type deposit, but the magnetics data proved to be successful in defining the geologic framework. Implications for future targeting and exploration for economic Ni mineralization are considered.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".