Typology and Geographic Geotectonic Distribution of Uranium Deposits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
\n In the last ten years, twenty new uranium deposits have been discovered. They provide nearly 50% of the known and reasonably assured resources. The most important deposits known in the past by size and ore grade were those found in oligomictic quartz pebble conglomerates, sandstones and, to a lesser extent, hydrothermal veins. The types found more recently, which are greater in quantity than the former ones, are of the vein type (Canada, Australia) as well as of the intrusive type (Rössing, Namibia) and in calcretes (Yeelirrie, Australia) and acid volcanic rocks (Mexico). Several classifications have been worked out in the past (E. W. Heinrich, 1958; M. Roubault, 1958; A. Mancher, 1962). More recently new data have enabled these classifications to be extended on a worldwide basis (Ruzicka, 1971; Ziegler, 1974; Dahlkamp, 1974, 1978) or on a regional basis (McMillon for Canada, 1978; Ingram for Australia, 1974). This classification attempt takes all available useful data into consideration to define different types of uranium deposits in as comprehensive and strict a manner as possible.\n
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".