MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1951696255 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2014-0321

Investigation of some controllable factors that impact the stress state in cemented paste backfill

2015· article· en· W1951696255 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringDrainagePore water pressureCementStress (linguistics)GeologyMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents in-stope measurements of total stress and pore-water pressure at strategic locations within three underground stopes at the Raleigh mine site (Western Australia) that were filled with cemented paste backfill (CPB). The three stopes were very similar in shape. Key differences among the stopes were the filling and resting schedules, the barricade drainage systems used, and the cement content of the CPB. Data from the stopes are compared to determine which controllable factors most significantly influence barricade pressures during and after filling. The most significant factor was the scheduling of rest periods between filling, with even very short pauses in filling dramatically reducing the rate of increase of pore-water pressure and total stress with increasing height of fill.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.392
Threshold uncertainty score0.986

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.174 · 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