MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302067893

Uranium Production, Exploration and Mine Development in Canada

2006· article· en· W2302067893 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R E Vance

Bibliographic record

VenuePacific Basin Nuclear Conference 2006 · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsUranium oreUraniumUranium mineMining engineeringStructural basinProduction (economics)Uranium miningEnvironmental scienceArchaeologyGeologyEnvironmental protectionGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has been the world leader in uranium production since the early 1990s. In 2005, production amounted to 11 629 tU (tonnes of uranium metal). The Elliot Lake region of Ontario was once the center of production, but after the last of these facilities closed in 1996 all production now originates from the Athabasca Basin of northern Saskatchewan (Figure 1). The Athabasca Basin hosts the world's premier, low-cost uranium deposits. Average grades of the world's two largest high-grade deposits, McArthur River and Cigar Lake, are 10 to 100 times the grade of deposits mined elsewhere. McArthur River has been in production since late 1999 and Cigar Lake is in final stages of construction with first production expected late in 2007. Remote, hightech mining and processing methods are used to extract uranium from these deposits. Canadian uranium producers are not only world leaders in production, but are also leaders in the development of environmentally responsible mining practices. All production facilities are strictly regulated by federal and provincial agencies. All effluents are treated prior to off-site release, and all tailings are managed and disposed of in mined-out open pits that have been engineered to serve as tailings management facilities.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.891

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.176 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePacific Basin Nuclear Conference 2006Same topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207