By Kenneth M. LemkeEVALUATION OF RIVER PORT AND ROAD NETWORKS TO SUPPORT MINERAL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of a comparative analysis of three potential river port sites and associated road networks to support mineral development activity in western Alaska are reported in this paper. A 50,000-square-mile area of western Alaska bounded by the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers is experiencing accelerated mineral exploration and mining activity. One potential project, with 11 million ounces of drill measured and indicated gold resources and 16 million ounces of drill inferred gold resources would require annual delivery of between 240,000 and 470,000 tons of fuel and equipment. Geologists estimate that an additional 17 million ounces are likely to be discovered within the study area during the next 25 years. Three potential river port locations and associated road corridors that could support anticipated, large-scale mining operations within the study area evaluated using a benefit-cost study approach. Two of the port and road corridor options generate estimated net present benefit values that exceeded estimated net present cost values. The port and road corridor option with the highest positive net present benefit value may not provide sufficient capacity to meet the area’s logistical requirements, and two ports may be built to support anticipated mineral development activities.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.002 |
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".