Practical applications of quality assurance and quality control in mineral exploration, resource estimation and mining programmes: a review of recommended international practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Independent quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) programmes are required by reporting codes for publicly listed companies and are necessary to optimize data quality at all stages of the sampling, preparation and analytical processes involved in mineral exploration, resource estimation and mining grade control. QA/QC programmes should be adjusted over time to meet changing requirements in data quality at different stages of mineral resource development and exploitation. Certified reference materials are used to monitor accuracy and bias at the project laboratory relative to consensus values for the material from round-robin certification analyses. They are also used to monitor drift over time within an individual laboratory and to identify significant failures in QC at the analytical batch level caused by abrupt changes in concentration related to re-calibration of instruments or procedural changes at the laboratory. Duplicate analyses of sample material are generated at key stages of sampling and preparation to estimate the precision of data generated at each stage. Invariably, the largest source of uncertainty occurs during the initial sampling. Coarse blanks are used to monitor cross-contamination between samples or from sample preparation equipment. Furthermore, each of these QC sample types can be used to discover possible sample mix-ups. Supplementary material: An Excel spreadsheet for the calculation of the average coefficient of variation (CV AVE ) (Appendix C) is available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.c.7070137 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.
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 | 0.090 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.005 |
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".