MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7161954519 · doi:10.82308/36366

Critical analysis of multiple-points statistics methods in the stochastic simulation of geology at Fox Kimberlitic Diamond Pipe located on the Ekati Property, North West Territories

2009· dissertation· en· W7161954519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lucia Robles-Stefoni

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpatial analysisStochastic simulationXenolithKimberliteStochastic modellingSedimentary depositional environmentFilter (signal processing)Diatreme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multiple-point simulation (MPS) methods have been developed over the past decade as a mean to generate stochastic simulations while reproducing complex geological patterns, such as high-grade depositional veins, groups of high-grade lentil shaped orebodies, or the spatial geometries and patterns of diamond-bearing kimberlite pipes. This thesis compares two MPS methods by modelling the geology of a diamond pipe located at the Ekati mine, NWT, Canada. The single normal equation simulation algorithm SNESIM, which captures different patterns from a training image (TI), and the filter simulation algorithm FILTERSIM, which classifies the patterns founded on the TI, are considered in this study. Both methods are used to generate stochastic simulations of a four-category geology model containing crater, diatreme, xenoliths and host rocks. Soft information about the location of the host rock is also used. Both MPS methods reasonably reproduced the geometry of the pipe, as per the TI used (crater and diatreme rock units); however, the methods differed in the proportion and location of the xenolith bodies within the pipe. The validation of the simulated results provided by the above methods shows a reasonable reproduction of the data proportions for all geological units considered; the validation of spatial statistics, however, shows that although simulated realizations from both methods reasonably reproduce the fourth order spatial statistics of the TI, they do not reproduce well the same spatial statistics of the available data (when these differ from the TI). An interesting observation is that SNESIM better imitates the shape of the pipe, whereas FILTERSIM reaches a better reproduction of the xenolith bodies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.512
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.303 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207