MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389721538 · doi:10.1190/image2023-3917106.1

Delineation of VMS deposits in the Bathurst Mining Camp, NB, based on lineament analysis and joint interpretation of 3D FTG and magnetic data inversion

2023· article· en· W4389721538 on OpenAlexaffabout
Pei Yang, Alexander L. Peace, Colm Murphy, Alan Morgan, Liam Clark

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLineamentGeologyJoint (building)Inversion (geology)Interpretation (philosophy)Magnetic anomalyMagnetic surveySeismologyGeophysicsMining engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringTectonics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Bathurst Mining Camp (BMC) in New Brunswick is one of Canada’s oldest mining areas for volcanogenic massive sulfide (VMS) deposits producing 30% of Canada’s Zn, 53% of its Pb and 17% of its Ag. The area underwent extensive geophysical surveying in the 1990s and early 2000’s, that included both airborne full tensor gravity gradiometry (FTG) and magnetics. However, and despite numerous studies using these data sets being performed, many uncertainties on the nature of VMS distribution, geometries and dimensions remain. The complex tectonic development of the area adds to the challenge requiring a revisit to the older geophysical datasets using current best practices. This paper describes a reworking of the FTG and magnetic data to map detailed lineament patterns followed by joint interpretation of an inversion over known VMS deposits. The results lead to an increased understanding of the structural characteristics of the BMC and delineation of VMS deposits.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207