Review of till geochemistry and indicator mineral methods for mineral exploration in glaciated terrain
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the 1970s, till geochemical and indicator mineral methods for mineral exploration, provenance studies and environmental research in glaciated terrain have been developed, tested and refined. This review summarizes these methods, focusing on field and laboratory methods for till geochemical, indicator mineral and boulder surveys. This review of protocols is intended as a guide for the mineral exploration industry and publicly funded agencies. It summarizes till as a sample medium, and describes the formation of glacial dispersal trains, along with methods for till sample collection, sample processing, matrix geochemistry, indicator mineral analyses, quality assurance/quality control procedures and data reporting and interpretation. The methods described here can be used to conduct reconnaissance- to deposit-scale till sampling surveys to assess mineral resource potential and establish environmental baselines. Supplementary material: Appendix A – Photographs of till types described in text; Appendix B – Logistical and geological factors to consider in till sample survey design; Appendix C – Photographs of glaciate terrain types described in text; and Appendix D – Till sample processing and analysis flow charts are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.6786087 Thematic collection: This article is part of the Reviews in Exploration Geochemistry collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/topic/collections/reviews-in-exploration-geochemistry
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 it