MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A balanced mineral prospectivity model of Canadian magmatic Ni (± Cu ± Co ± PGE) sulphide mineral systems using conditional variational autoencoders

2024· article· en· W4404437417 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Lahiru M.A. Nagasingha, Charles L. Bérubé, C J M Lawley

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Resources CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProspectivity mappingGeologyGeochemistryMineralPetrologyMineralogyGeomorphologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the increasing demand for raw materials, innovative exploration techniques are needed to discover large mineral deposits that are accessible from the surface. In recent years, various supervised machine learning techniques have proven effective for mineral prospectivity modelling (MPM). However, the successful application of these techniques has been limited due to the scarcity of known mineral deposits compared to barren regions, which leads to a model imbalance favouring the latter. We address the data imbalance challenge in MPM by proposing a novel generative modelling approach using a conditional variational autoencoder (CVAE). We compare the proposed method with two other data balancing techniques, namely the synthetic minority oversampling technique and class weighting. Furthermore, the efficacy of the balancing strategies is evaluated for three MPM classification methods, including extreme gradient boosting machines (XGBM), random forests, and multilayer perceptrons . We implement and test the approaches by modelling the prospectivity of magmatic Ni (±Cu ±Co ±Platinum group elements) sulphide mineral systems for the Canadian landmass. With an area under the success rate curve of 0.95 for a spatially distinct testing data set, we observe that a combination of the proposed CVAE framework with the XGBM classification model surpasses the other methods. Furthermore, the geographical representation of our XGBM-CVAE model demonstrates a strong association with known Ni mineral occurrences in Canada, along with new prospective regions in underexplored areas.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.875
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations11
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207