MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147574608 · doi:10.1139/t03-071

Assessment of the modified slump test as a measure of the yield stress of high-density thickened tailings

2004· article· en· W2147574608 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
S KY Gawu, Andy Fourie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlumpTailingsRheometerRheologyGeotechnical engineeringYield (engineering)Concrete slump testStress (linguistics)Materials scienceGeologyEngineeringStructural engineeringComposite materialMetallurgyCompressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Yield stress values of four thickened (high-density) mineral tailings at varying solids concentrations were determined using three different techniques. The first set of values was measured using the modified slump test approach with an open-ended cylinder having an aspect ratio of 1.2. A second set was derived from measurements obtained from a coaxial cylinder fitted to a Rheolab ® MC1 rheometer. The results were graphically compared with those obtained using the miniature vane technique, a popular and well-accepted method of measuring yield stress. Empirical relations developed from the modified slump test appear to predict reasonably accurate yield stress values up to about 200 Pa when compared with the vane and rheometer results. It is concluded that, although the time-dependent nature of the tailings tested may induce errors as much as ±30% for some samples, the modified slump test provides a reliable and simple test for evaluating the yield stress of thickened tailings. The method can therefore be employed as a first approximation of the changing parameters of high-density thickened tailings in the field without necessarily resorting to sophisticated equipment.Key words: high-density thickened tailings, rheology, shear yield stress, slump, torque.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations46
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207