MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416956837 · doi:10.1144/geochem2025-053

Applications of machine vision and machine learning for deposit characterization at the Castelo de Sonhos paleoplacer gold deposit, Brazil

2025· article· en· W4416956837 on OpenAlexaff
McLean Trott, Fernanda Bretas, Britt Bluemel, R. H. Lipson, Sam Sattarzadeh, Shervin Azad

Bibliographic record

VenueGeochemistry Exploration Environment Analysis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityGolder Associates (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMachine visionScalabilityCharacterization (materials science)DrillingGold oreSedimentary depositional environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Paleoplacer gold deposits represent a significant source of global gold production. The Castelo de Sonhos deposit in Brazil is a promising candidate for development and contribution to the paleoplacer proportion of gold production. Mineralization in the deposit is associated with metamorphosed conglomeratic units. This study applies machine vision methods to RGB drill-core imagery to identify and quantify the characteristics of large clasts (pebble to cobble-sized) within these units. Using this workflow, we demonstrate that gold-bearing material is preferentially found in specific ranges of clast geometry criteria, corresponding to an optimal depositional environment, offering a scalable and internally consistent support for manual logging. This approach enables rapid assessment of mineralization potential to support drilling decisions, and in the production environment, would enable rapid and robust material sorting, lowering costs associated with siliceous cobble-rich ore. These findings highlight the value of machine vision methods integrated with geochemical data and interpretation to enhance both exploration and operational efficiencies.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.564
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeochemistry Exploration Environment AnalysisSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207