MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416611322 · doi:10.30574/wjarr.2025.28.2.3865

Comparative Insights into Banded Iron Formations of Ivory Coast and Guinea

2025· article· W4416611322 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mohamed Samuel Moriah Conté, N’Guessan Nestor Housou, Mohamed Lamine TIMITE, Alain Nicaise Kouamelan, Adingra Martial Pohn Koffi, Youan Charles Tra Bi

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geochemical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBanded iron formationArcheanProterozoicMetallogenyPrecambrianMineralization (soil science)MetamorphismWolframite

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Banded Iron Formation (BIF) is part of the Precambrian history. They are well studied in several provinces of the world: Harmesley range (Australia), Transvaal (South Africa), Krivoy Rog (Ukraine), Labrador (Canada), Lake Superior (USA), Gunflint and Biwabik (USA) and Isua (Greenland). They constitute a world-class economic reserve in Guinea and Ivory Coast, more particularly in the Nimba-Simandou-Klahoyo-Tia Mountains). The main BIF studied are located on the borders of these two countries. These BIF present close similarities in petrography, structural metallogeny and geochemistry. The metallographic study has shown that the mineralization is essentially composed of magnetite. Although they share some characteristics, they show some typical divergences in terms of metamorphism and age. The Mount Klahoyo and Tia BIF are of Archean Algoma type while those of Guinea are of Proterozoic age, characteristic of BIF of the Lake Superior type. Overall, most of the mineralization is contained in magnetite or itabirite quartzites (BIF). From this, we can deduce that the BIF of Guinea are a continuation of those identified in Ivory Coast.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.800

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Journal of Advanced Research and ReviewsSame topicGeological and Geochemical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207