MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416175963 · doi:10.1190/tle44110901.1

Marine geophysical exploration for seafloor massive sulfides using unmanned underwater vehicles

2025· article· en· W4416175963 on OpenAlexaff
Seung‐Sep Kim, Evan Schankee Um, Peter Kowalczyk, Jonguk Kim, Je-Hyun Song

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Leading Edge · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeophysical and Geoelectrical Methods
Canadian institutionsOceanWorks International (Canada)
FundersNational Research Foundation of KoreaMinistry of Oceans and Fisheries
KeywordsUnderwaterSeafloor spreadingInversion (geology)Magnetic surveySeabedMineral explorationExploration geophysicsSeismic explorationBathymetry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seafloor massive sulfide (SMS) deposits contain strategic metals essential for modern technologies, but traditional exploration methods using water column surveys and direct observation provide limited insight into subsurface extent and structure. This study evaluated three geophysical methods for SMS exploration using unmanned underwater vehicles: self-potential (SP), magnetic, and controlled-source electromagnetic (CSEM) techniques. Through 3D numerical modeling and inversion studies based on the Trans-Atlantic Geotraverse field, we demonstrated that SP and magnetic methods offer cost-effective, passive reconnaissance capabilities with limited depth resolution, while CSEM provides superior high-resolution 3D imaging but requires more sophisticated instrumentation. Autonomous underwater vehicles excel in large-scale surveys, whereas remotely operated vehicles enhance signal detection through closer seafloor proximity. Integration of multiple geophysical data sets significantly improved detection accuracy and reduced interpretive uncertainties. As marine sensors and numerical algorithms advance, these integrated geophysical approaches will play increasingly crucial roles in efficient SMS exploration, with benefits far outweighing survey costs.

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)0.000
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Leading EdgeSame topicGeophysical and Geoelectrical MethodsFrench-language works237,207