Inversion of downhole resistivity properties through infrared spectroscopy and whole‐rock geochemistry using machine‐learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The electrical properties of rocks are widely used in the geophysical exploration of natural resources, such as minerals, hydrocarbons and groundwater. In mining exploration, the primary goal is to map electrically anomalous geological features associated with different mineralization styles, such as clay alteration haloes, metal oxides and sulphides, weathered crystalline rocks or fractured zones. As such, the reconciliation of geophysical data with geological information (geochemistry, mineralogy, texture and lithology) is a critical step and can be performed based on petrophysical properties collected either on core samples or as downhole measurements. Based on data from 189 diamond drill cores collected for uranium exploration in the Athabasca Basin (Saskatchewan, Canada), this paper presents a case study of reconciliation of downhole resistivity probing with core sample geochemistry and short‐wave infrared spectroscopy (350–2500 nm) through three successive steps: (i) multivariate analysis of resistivity and other petrophysical properties (porosity, density) against geochemical and infrared spectroscopy information to characterize electrical properties of rocks with respect to other physical parameters, (ii) a machine‐learning workflow integrating geochemistry and spectral signatures in order to infer synthetic resistivity logs along with uncertainties. The best model in the basin was Light Gradient‐Boosting Machine with pairwise log‐ratio, which yielded a coefficient of determination R2 = 0.80 (root mean square error = 0.16), and in the basement, support vector regression with data fusion of infrared spectroscopy and pairwise log‐ratios on geochemistry yielded R2 = 0.82 (root mean square error = 0.35); (iii) the best model was then fitted on an area that was excluded from the original dataset (Getty Russell property) in order to infer synthetic resistivity logs for that zone. Software code is publicly available. This workflow can be re‐used for the valorization of legacy datasets.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".