Performance of engineered test covers on acid-generating waste rock at Whistle mine, Ontario
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the design and 3 year field performance results of three engineered test soil covers for the mitigation of acid rock drainage (ARD) at Whistle mine near Capreol, Ontario. Each test cover was a two-layer system consisting of a 0.90 m noncompacted pit-run gravelly sand overlying a barrier layer. The three barrier layers studied were a 0.46 m thick mixture of sand (92%) and bentonite (8%) (SB), a 0.60 m thick layer of sandy silt with about 5% clay (SS), and a 0.008 m thick geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). Each cover was installed on 6.10 m thick acid-generating waste rock and was instrumented and monitored along with a control test plot that consisted of 6.10 m of waste rock. The ultimate objective of the study was to select a suitable cover for full-scale decommissioning of acid-generating waste rock backfilled into the Whistle pit. Results from 3 years of monitoring showed that the GCL was the most effective barrier in reducing percolation into the underlying waste rock. Percolation through the GCL barrier was 7% over the 3 year period compared with 20% and 59.6% through the sandbentonite and sandy silt barriers, respectively, and 56.4% through the control plot. The overall quality of percolate water from the covered waste rock was much better than that of percolate water from the uncovered waste rock. Aqueous geochemical modeling suggested that percolate water draining the oxidized waste rock was controlled by hydroxides, oxide, and sulphate phases of Al, Ca, Mg, and Fe3+.Key words: waste rock, acid rock drainage (ARD), capillary barrier, geosynthetic clay liner, amended soil systems, percolation, MINTEQ.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".