MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387844827 · doi:10.1038/s43247-023-01020-z

DNA sequencing, microbial indicators, and the discovery of buried kimberlites

2023· article· en· W4387844827 on OpenAlexafffund
Rachel L. Simister, Bianca P. Iulianella Phillips, Andrew P. Wickham, Erika M. Cayer, Craig J.R. Hart, Peter A. Winterburn, Sean A. Crowe

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsKimberliteOverburdenSurface miningGeologyEarth scienceMining engineeringGeochemistryCoal miningGeographyArchaeologyCoal

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Population growth and technological advancements are placing growing demand on mineral resources. New and innovative exploration technologies that improve detection of deeply buried mineralization and host rocks are required to meet these demands. Here we used diamondiferous kimberlite ore bodies as a test case and show that DNA amplicon sequencing of soil microbial communities resolves anomalies in microbial community composition and structure that reflect the surface expression of kimberlites buried under 10 s of meters of overburden. Indicator species derived from laboratory amendment experiments were employed in an exploration survey in which the species distributions effectively delineated the surface expression of buried kimberlites. Additional indicator species derived directly from field observations improved the blind discovery of kimberlites buried beneath similar overburden types. Application of DNA sequence-based analyses of soil microbial communities to mineral deposit exploration provides a powerful illustration of how genomics technologies can be leveraged in the discovery of critical new resources.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesFrench-language works237,207