MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Acid rock drainage source control opportunities at the Red Dog Zinc and Lead Mine, USA

2011· article· en· W2287310478 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZincLead (geology)DrainageAcid mine drainageMining engineeringEnvironmental scienceZinc compoundsGeologyMetallurgyMaterials scienceEcologyBiologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Located in the Western Brooks Range of Alaska, the Red Dog Mine is one of the most northerly active, zinc-lead open pit mines. Mining of high grade zinc and lead sulphide ores results in the production of waste rock that is mostly acid generating. Control and treatment of acid rock drainage (ARD) from waste rock and pit walls is one of the most critical environmental activities at the mine site. The treatment of ARD water from the main waste rock stockpile, containing total dissolved solids (TDS) values as high as 90,000 mg/L, is expensive today and it will be a major component of post-closure costs in the future. In order to reduce the amount of water to be treated in the near and longer term, Red Dog has initiated programs to minimise the production of ARD at the source, through construction of engineered cover systems on waste rock stockpiles and will make improvements in the collection and treatment of the ARD waters from the stockpiles, to allow for more efficient removal of TDS from the impacted waters.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.195 · 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