MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mineral Exploration Process and Technology

2025· article· en· W4412432972 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal For Multidisciplinary Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)GeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mineral exploration process is a dynamic system with a decision-making phase at each stage. The process of modern mineral discovery is characterised by a high element of risk, a lengthy time-span and sustained cash outflow, all of which may result in a zero return if an economic discovery is not made. Any successful exploration campaign must follow a route through genesis-oriented geological models and the application of appropriate exploration technology, which includes commercial and economic judgements at each stage of the process, so that chances of success may be optimized at an acceptable level of risk. The exploration process evolves from a generative stage and results in a) identification of appropriate geological models for mineralization b) identification of geologically conducive target areas c) testing and evaluation of target areas that culminates in discovery of mineral occurrences d) definition and delineation of the occurrence e) development of the deposit. The application of exploration technology is an important aspect of any exploration program. The use of advanced exploration technology is necessary because we now often work in complex geological settings where discovery of subsurface mineral deposits is commonly based on subtle surface manifestations. Applying the advanced technology effectively may enable exploration of large target areas within restricted budgets. Advancements in exploration technology have progressed especially quickly in countries like Canada and Australia, where an evolved mineral exploration industry has already found the obvious deposits and more specialized techniques are required to detect the increasingly subtle indications of subsurface mineral deposits. The advancements in Mineral exploration technology are mainly found in the following areas: • Airborne geophysical surveys: Airborne electro-magnetic systems with advanced configurations both in frequency and time domains. The application of these advances has lead to a considerable increase in the bandwidth of both helicopter-borne FDEM and fixed wing TDEM systems, which has enabled to capture deep-seated EM anomalies. • Ground geophysical surveys: Significant changes and improvements have occurred in ground electromagnetic (EM) techniques. Regarding the 10 to 100 Hz EM systems that are generally used for mineral prospecting and geologic mapping, improvements have yielded capabilities of detecting large conductive bodies to depths of 500m. Alternatively, smaller, less conductive tabular galena / sphalerite / pyrite bodies, such as the Licheen deposit in Ireland, are detectable to depths of 300m.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.573
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.369 · 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