Feature Paper Adelaide model logging pits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
International efforts made in the early 1980s to cross-calibrate the grades of model pits used in the calibration of total-count gamma-ray logging tools for uranium were never applied to bring the Australian, Canadian and USA pits into agreement. Recent studies on calibration revealed problems with the Australian pits and data from the 1980 studies has been re-evaluated to give new grades for the Adelaide pits of 0.210, 0.983, 0.051 and 0.18 eU3O8 % for pits AM1, 2, 3 and 7, respectively. These changes ensure the four pits are in relative agreement with logging results and gamma-ray transport modelling. The absolute grade is more difficult to assign definitely but indications are that AM1, through being twice sampled by coring and analysis, is more likely to be correct than pits whose grades are solely based on analysis of poorly handled samples. The changes in the grades actually have little effect on the grades in U deposits determined using the Adelaide model pits for calibration as the error with AM2 acted as a compensation for the Z-effect in that pit.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.006 |
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".