MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001037496 · doi:10.1076/ijsm.15.2.123.3415

Development of an Environmental Impact and Mitigation Assessment Program for a Tailings Storage Facility Stability Upgrade

2001· article· en· W2001037496 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
David Mhina Mchaina, S. Januszewski, Rebecca Hallam

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Surface Mining Reclamation and Environment · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsUpgradeLand reclamationPlan (archaeology)Environmental scienceEnvironmental impact assessmentCompensation (psychology)Channel (broadcasting)Civil engineeringEnvironmental planningEngineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental resource managementComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper summarizes an environmental impact and mitigation assessment plan developed for a tailings storage facility stability upgrade project at a Canadian base-metal mine. The plan details environmental aspects relevant for channel modification involving the narrowing of a creek channel width. Planning for a tailings storage facility stability upgrade is site-specific, however, this paper details a number of aspects that may be taken into consideration when planning for a project of a similar nature. These aspects include: evaluation of environmental effects and their significance, analyses of cumulative effects, in-situ fish habitat characterization and enhancement program, regulatory requirements, provisions for accidents and malfunctions and fisheries compensation requirements. These considerations together with the proposed monitoring activities for the on-going construction activities are reviewed and discussed in this paper. These aspects can be applied to similar situations when considering factors such as topography, geology, climate, biophysical setting, availability of construction materials, mode of construction, reclamation options and applicable laws.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations10
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Surface Mining Reclamation and EnvironmentSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207