Exploration targeting for gold deposits using spatial data analytics, machine learning and deep transfer learning in the Swayze and Matheson greenstone belts, Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rate of mineral deposit discovery has declined in the past decade despite increasing efforts from mining and government. The low rate of deposit discovery and the massive historical data available from brownfield exploration sites has prompted geoscientists to apply scale-integrated, empirical, and conceptual targeting approaches to exploration targeting. Applications of the mineral systems approach as a conceptual targeting method together with mineral prospectivity mapping has become the focus of predictive modelling for mineral exploration targeting. Evaluating the essential ingredients that make up a mineral system at various scales with data science machine learning tools could potentially help improve exploration discovery. This study was aimed at mineral exploration targeting gold deposits in the Abitibi greenstone belt using various spatial analysis, machine learning, and transfer learning methods. The multi-scale spatial analysis of gold prospects in the Swayze greenstone belt revealed orogenic mineral systems display fractal characteristics at regional and deposit scales, that gold prospects are clustered within 2 -4 km distances, and that clustering within camps can be attributed to the occurrences of lower-order fault densities or intrusive source rocks. Analyzing spatial correlations between prospect distributions and geological features was instrumental in identifying the physical controlling parameters at various scales, which were primarily D2 structures at regional scales and 2nd and 3rd order structures and competency contrast at prospect scales. Furthermore, the mineral prospectivity maps generated from the various machine learning methods such as support vector machines, random forest, radial basis function neural networks, and deep neural networks were not only beneficial in predicting prospective regions with > 80% accuracies but were essential for emphasizing important geoscience predictor layers that correlate well with mineral prospects. Deep transfer learning attempted for exploration targeting aimed at training a deep neural network model on the Swayze greenstone belt and using the learnt knowledge to make predictions of prospectivity on the Matheson region resulted in over 70% prediction accuracies. Deep transfer learning was valuable in showing that pre-trained models can be used to generate prospectivity predictions in relatively greenfield exploration site where the distributions of prospects are unknown. Overall, this study demonstrates that data integration and applications of data science tools is effective for exploration targeting today.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".