MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064700617 · doi:10.1139/t06-058

Design and evaluation of mixtures of mine waste rock and tailings

2006· article· en· W2064700617 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
Benjamin E Wickland, Gordon Wilson, Dharma Wijewickreme, Bern Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTailingsCompressibilityGeotechnical engineeringRheologyMunicipal solid wasteWaste materialWaste managementGeologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The technique of mixing mine waste rock and tailings for disposal has the potential to avoid the problems of acid rock drainage and tailings liquefaction. This paper presents a rational basis for the design of mixtures based on particle packing theory and laboratory investigations. Mixtures were conceptualized using a particle model that allows mixture design and interpretation of behaviour. Laboratory investigations included examination of tailings rheology, mixture trials, and compressibility testing of waste rock, tailings, and mixtures of waste rock and tailings. Results indicate that mixture design governs mixture structure, and consequently also compressibility behaviour. A method is presented to predict mixture compressibility from mixture ratio and the properties of the parent waste rock and tailings. The study provides theory for the design and evaluation of mixtures as a mine waste disposal technique and demonstrates that the design of geotechnical properties is possible for homogeneous mixtures of mine wastes at the laboratory scale.Key words: co-disposal, particle packing, rheology, compressibility, waste rock, tailings.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.433

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.186 · 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

Citations72
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207