Machine Learning Classification of Fertile and Barren Adakites for Refining Mineral Prospectivity Mapping: Geochemical Insights from the Northern Appalachians, New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study applies machine learning (ML) techniques to classify fertile [for porphyry Cu and (or) Au systems] and barren adakites using geochemical data from New Brunswick, Canada. It emphasizes that not all intrusive units, including adakites, are inherently fertile and should not be directly used as the heat source evidence layer in mineral prospectivity mapping without prior analysis. Adakites play a crucial role in mineral exploration by helping distinguish between fertile and barren intrusive units, which significantly influence ore-forming processes. A dataset of 99 fertile and 66 barren adakites was analyzed using seven ML models: support vector machine (SVM), neural network, random forest (RF), decision tree, AdaBoost, gradient boosting, and logistic regression. These models were applied to classify 829 adakite samples from around the world into fertile and barren categories, with performance evaluated using area under the curve (AUC), classification accuracy, F1 score, precision, recall, and Matthews correlation coefficient (MCC). SVM achieved the highest performance (AUC = 0.91), followed by gradient boosting (0.90) and RF (0.89). For model validation, 160 globally recognized fertile adakites were selected from the dataset based on well-documented fertility characteristics. Among the tested models, SVM demonstrated the highest classification accuracy (93.75%), underscoring its effectiveness in distinguishing fertile from barren adakites for mineral prospectivity mapping. Statistical analysis and feature selection identified middle rare earth elements (REEs), including Gd and Dy, with Hf, as key indicators of fertility. A comprehensive analysis of 1596 scatter plots, generated from 57 geochemical variables, was conducted using linear discriminant analysis (LDA) to determine the most effective variable pairs for distinguishing fertile and barren adakites. The most informative scatter plots featured element vs. element combinations (e.g., Ga vs. Dy, Ga vs. Gd, and Pr vs. Gd), followed by element vs. major oxide (e.g., Fe2O3T vs. Gd and Al2O3 vs. Hf) and ratio vs. element (e.g., La/Sm vs. Gd, Rb/Sr vs. Hf) plots, whereas major oxide vs. major oxide, ratio vs. ratio, and major oxide vs. ratio plots had limited discriminatory power.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".