MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2298870433 · doi:10.14288/1.0042341

Managing mine subsidence risks at the Three Sisters Resorts development in Canmore, Alberta

2009· article· en· W2298870433 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeomechanics and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubsidenceMining engineeringBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementGeologyGeographyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will discuss investigation methods, risk-based evaluation techniques, and remediation strategies that are employed to manage the hazards associated with shallow room and pillar coal mines. Key issues are the size of the development and its proximity to extensive mine workings, as well as the mitigation strategies that have been employed to remediate the mine workings for a wide range of ground conditions and land use objectives. Prior to development, areas are assessed using a risk matrix which correlates the proposed land use with the type of mining hazard that is present beneath the area in order to evaluate the necessity and extent of mitigation that is required. This provides a consistent framework that guides development for the property, and also provides a means with which to convey risk to the developer, investors, regulators, and the general public.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.937

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.162
Teacher spread0.151 · 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