Bibliographic record
Abstract
A study has been made to evaluate the effects of horizontal drain drainage on the water table drawdown in open pit slopes. Two major parameters of a horizontal drain drainage system, length and spacing, were studied. A two dimensional finite element computer model was constructed to simulate the water flow into drains in rock slopes. Water flow in the saturated zone was assumed. The computer model was tested by the field data obtained from the LORNEX Mine in British Columbia and the data taken from INTRODUCTION TO GROUNDWATER MODELING (Wang & Anderson, 1982). Satisfactory agreements were obtained. As the result of computer simulations, a series of graphs were plotted. These graphs show the relationship between hydraulic head distribution vs. drain spacing and length. They could be used in horizontal drain design as an aid to determine the spacing and length of a drain system. The computer simulations were also made to study the drainage characteristics of anisotropic rock slopes. The results indicated the influence of such rock conditions on the drainage effect. Another feature of mining slopes is that their height varies as the mining operation progresses. Therefore, the suitable vertical spacing between drain rows was investigated by computer simulation. A comparison of the drainage effects of different drain patterns, parallel drain and fanned drain layouts, was also made.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".