Workflow-Induced Uncertainty in Data-Driven Mineral Prospectivity Mapping
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The primary goal of mineral prospectivity mapping (MPM) is to narrow the search for mineral resources by producing spatially selective maps. However, in the data-driven domain, MPM products vary depending on the workflow implemented. Although the data science framework is popular to guide the implementation of data-driven MPM tasks, and is intended to create objective and replicable workflows, this does not necessarily mean that maps derived from data science workflows are optimal in a spatial sense. In this study, we explore interactions between key components of a geodata science-based MPM workflow on the geospatial outcome, within the modeling stage by modulating: (1) feature space dimensionality, (2) the choice of machine learning algorithms, and (3) performance metrics that guide hyperparameter tuning. We specifically relate these variations in the data science workflow to the spatial selectivity of resulting maps using uncertainty propagation. Results demonstrate that typical geodata science-based MPM workflows contain substantial local minima, as it is highly probable for an arbitrary combination of workflow choices to produce highly discriminating models. In addition, variable domain metrics, which are key to guide the iterative implementation of the data science framework, exhibit inconsistent relationships with spatial selectivity. We refer to this class of uncertainty as workflow-induced uncertainty. Consequently, we propose that the canonical concept of scientific consensus from the greater experimental science framework should be adhered to, in order to quantify and mitigate against workflow-induced uncertainty as part of data-driven experimentation. Scientific consensus stipulates that the degree of consensus of experimental outcomes is the determinant in the reliability of findings. Indeed, we demonstrate that consensus through purposeful modulations of components of a data-driven MPM workflow is an effective method to understand and quantify workflow-induced uncertainty on MPM products. In other words, enlarging the search space for workflow design and experimenting with workflow components can result in more meaningful reductions in the physical search space for mineral 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 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 | 0.025 | 0.086 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".