Geophysical detection of mineral conductors in tropical terrains with target conductors partly embedded in the conductive overburden
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ground geophysical methods were used in the greenstone belt of Western Kenya as follow-up of an Input airborne electromagnetic survey. Observation and drilling results showed that the graphite and pyrite bodies, which constitute the main target conductors in the area, either outcrop or reach near to the ground surface. The drilling results further showed that the weathered layer is between 20 m and 60 m thick. Therefore the target conductors are partly embedded in this fairly conductive weathered layer and may be in galvanic contact with it. The geophysical methods were able to delineate the conductors. However, by virtue of the galvanic contact between the conductors and the conductive overburden, the profiles from the horizontal loop EM measurements are highly enhanced. This effect makes interpretation of the profiles possible at low frequencies but difficult at high frequencies. The interpreted EM results show that the target conductors appear shallow and less conductive at higher frequencies. Thus one must choose geophysical instruments and operating frequencies carefully to ensure good results in tropical terrains.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".