MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abandoned Metal Mine Stability Risk Evaluation

2009· article· en· W2007477633 on OpenAlexaffabout
M Bétournay

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMining Association of CanadaNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)Risk assessmentGeomechanicsHazardEngineeringForensic engineeringCivil engineeringEnvironmental resource managementMining engineeringEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental planningBusinessGeotechnical engineeringComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The abandoned mine legacy is critical in many countries around the world, where mine cave-ins and surface subsidence disruptions are perpetual risks that can affect the population, infrastructure, historical legacies, land use, and the environment. This article establishes abandoned metal mine failure risk evaluation approaches and quantification techniques based on the Canadian mining experience. These utilize clear geomechanics considerations such as failure mechanisms, which are dependent on well-defined rock mass parameters. Quantified risk is computed using probability of failure (probabilistics using limit-equilibrium factors of safety or applicable numerical modeling factor of safety quantifications) times a consequence impact value. Semi-quantified risk can be based on failure-case-study-based empirical data used in calculating probability of failure, and personal experience can provide qualified hazard and impact consequence assessments. The article provides outlines for land use and selection of remediation measures based on risk.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.191
Threshold uncertainty score0.441

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207