MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182834638

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

2001· article· en· W2182834638 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.876

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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