MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2311261249 · doi:10.14288/1.0042239

Mine rock guidelines : an overview

2009· article· en· W2311261249 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
L. S. Sinclair

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The identification of low pH waters seeping from a uranium mine waste rock dump in northern Saskatchewan initiated the investigation into the potential for acid mine drainage conditions to exist at the mines in northern Saskatchewan. Studies conducted by the companies operating in the province and the Saskatchewan Environment and Public Safety Mineral Industry Environmental Protection Branch (MIEPB) identified acidic seeps at each of the mining operations. Once identified the question asked was, "how do we assess the problem?". To be consistent in the approach to assessing the problem the MIEPB decided to publish a guideline that would be a reference manual for the mining companies, government agencies and other interest groups. To ensure that the manual was current the MIEPB contracted a consulting firm to, under the direction of the MIEPB, write the document. The most important criteria that the consultant had to meet was that of producing a document that was not a text book but rather a "hands-on" users manual. If success can be measured in numbers then the over two hundred and fifty requests that we have had for the Guidelines would indicate to us that the Guidelines are a success.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.017
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.022

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207