MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6892342244 · doi:10.5066/p97fry3m

Indium deposits in the United States

2022· dataset· en· W6892342244 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndiumMineral resource classificationMineralSkarnGeological survey

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data release provides the descriptions of the only U.S. sites-including mining districts, mineral occurrences, and mine features-that have reported production and (or) resources of indium (In). This dataset contains the Bingham and West Desert deposits in Utah, and the Chino site in New Mexico. Indium is considered a critical and strategic mineral because of its use in the aerospace, defense, energy, and telecommunications sectors. The primary applications are flat-panel displays, and specialty alloys (Fortier and others, 2018). In 2021, the U.S. was 100 percent net import reliant on indium from China, Canada, Republic of Korea, and France (U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). Indium is most commonly recovered from sphalerite, a zinc-sulfide mineral, wherein the indium occurs in quantities of less than 1 part per million (ppm) to 100 ppm (U.S. Geological Survey, 2022). In the U.S., indium is found in porphyry and skarn deposits. The West Desert deposit in Utah is the only deposit in the U.S. with a modern National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101) compliant resource estimate of indium (Dyer and others, 2014). The entries and descriptions in the database were derived from published papers, reports, data, and internet documents representing a variety of sources, including geologic and exploration studies described in State, Federal, and industry reports. Resources extracted from older sources might not be compliant with current rules and guidelines in minerals industry standards such as NI 43-101. The presence of an indium mineral deposit in this database is not meant to imply that the deposit is currently economic. Rather, these deposits were included to capture the characteristics of the largest indium deposits in the United States. Inclusion of material in the database is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. The authors welcome additional published information in order to continually update and refine this dataset. Dyer, T.L., Tietz, P.G., and Austin, J.B., 2014, Technical report on the West Desert zinc-copper-indium-magnetite project, preliminary economic assessment, Juab County, Utah, prepared for InZinc Mining Ltd. [Filing date March 17, 2014]: Mine Development Associates, 188 p., accessed March 10, 2020, at http://www.sedar.com. Fortier, S.M., Nassar, N.T., Lederer, G.W., Brainard, J., Gambogi, J., and McCullough, E.A., 2018, Draft critical mineral list-Summary of methodology and background information-U.S. Geological Survey technical input document in response to Secretarial Order No. 3359: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2018-1021, 15 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr20181021. U.S. Geological Survey, 2022, Mineral commodity summaries 2022: U.S. Geological Survey, 202 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2022.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.005

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentFrench-language works237,207