MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182834638

Impounded mine tailings: What are the failures telling us?*

2001· article· en· W2182834638 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Michael P. Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM bulletin · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsMining engineeringDam failureMining industryTailings damSurface miningEnvironmental scienceEngineeringWaste managementGeographyArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the past 30 years, failures of mine tailing impoundments have occurred at relatively high rates, resulting in massive damage and severe economic impact to the worldwide mining industry. The rate of failure is about ten times that for conventional water retention dams. Tailings impoundments are some of the largest man-made structures, but the dams that impound tailings have only gained recognition as dams in the last few decades. This paper presented the basic features of a few case histories that provide valuable lessons to the industry. A database for tailing impoundment failures has been developed to help identify failure modes, failure impacts and failure frequency. Some clear trends emerged from this review and a better understanding of these trends can help enhance current and future design, construction and operational/closure stewardship of mine tailings facilities. This paper also summarized some of the recent initiatives by the mining industry and its regulators in helping to assure the safety of mine tailing. Many of these initiatives originated in Canada. In the past 10 years there has been a sharp increase in the amount of regulatory agencies that are setting prescriptive or rigid guidelines for tailings dams. The first step in evaluating the reasons for continued failures of mine tailings dams is to recognize the uniqueness of mine tailings facilities. The unique features include: (1) tailings impoundments are among the largest man-made structures in the world with several approaching 1 x 10{sup 9} t of stored slurried tailings, (2) tailings dams are built on a continuous basis by mine operators, and (3) tailings facilities are only a cost to the mining process. Unlike a hydroelectric dam, they do not generate a revenue stream. It was suggested that a combination of factors is responsible for the failure trends. Mining companies typically do not have in-house geotechnical expertise. Failures can have any or all of the following impacts: extended production interruption, environmental damage, damage to the industry's image, economic consequences to the industry, legal responsibility and loss of life. The author suggested that in order to make the lessons available from the tailings impoundment failure database as salient as possible, there should be some minimum expectations for the owners, designers, regulators and individuals involved in the tailings dam life cycle. 21 refs., 3 tabs., 1 fig.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.174 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM bulletinSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207