214 Figure 2: (a) Rock samples proportions. (b) Rock samples declustered proportions. For the hierarchies evaluated in this study, defined by global proportion ranks, Figure 2 indicates that category 5 exhibits a lower global proportion after declustering. This reduction causes category 5 to drop from third place in the ranking, which is now occupied by category 1, resulting in a minor modification to the hierarchical ordering (Table 2). Table 2 – Compared hierarchies of spatial allocation Step Sample Proportion Declustered Proportion 1 Rock 2 Rock 2 2 Rock 3 Rock 3 3 Rock 5 Rock 1 4 Rock 1 Rock 5 5 Rock 4 Rock 4 The resulting decision tree corresponding to the two hierarchical orders compared in this study are presented in Figure 3. The trees are represented using the symbology described by Caers (2011), where squares denote decision nodes with labeled branches listing the possible alternatives, circles denote uncertainty nodes with branches representing possible outcomes and their associated probabilities, and triangles denote payoff nodes, with values indicated at the terminal branches. Additionally, we represent the output triangles with the corresponding category color. The probabilities in the branches of the uncertainty circles are obtained at each node by ordinary indicator kriging (IK) of the corresponding category. 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 1 2 3 4 5 Rock samples Proportion (%) Proportion (%) 40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 1 2 3 4 5 Rock samples declustered
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM0Mzk2