Applications of Natural Language Processing to Geoscience Text Data and Prospectivity Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Geological maps are powerful models for visualizing the complex distribution of rock types through space and time. However, the descriptive information that forms the basis for a preferred map interpretation is typically stored in geological map databases as unstructured text data that are difficult to use in practice. Herein we apply natural language processing (NLP) to geoscientific text data from Canada, the U.S., and Australia to address that knowledge gap. First, rock descriptions, geological ages, lithostratigraphic and lithodemic information, and other long-form text data are translated to numerical vectors, i.e., a word embedding, using a geoscience language model. Network analysis of word associations, nearest neighbors, and principal component analysis are then used to extract meaningful semantic relationships between rock types. We further demonstrate using simple Naive Bayes classifiers and the area under receiver operating characteristics plots (AUC) how word vectors can be used to: (1) predict the locations of “pegmatitic” (AUC = 0.962) and “alkalic” (AUC = 0.938) rocks; (2) predict mineral potential for Mississippi-Valley-type (AUC = 0.868) and clastic-dominated (AUC = 0.809) Zn-Pb deposits; and (3) search geoscientific text data for analogues of the giant Mount Isa clastic-dominated Zn-Pb deposit using the cosine similarities between word vectors. This form of semantic search is a promising NLP approach for assessing mineral potential with limited training data. Overall, the results highlight how geoscience language models and NLP can be used to extract new knowledge from unstructured text data and reduce the mineral exploration search space for critical raw materials.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".