MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2314251456 · doi:10.21000/jasmr06021961

CHARACTERIZATION OF THE WASTE ROCK AND PIT WALLS AT THE JUNDEE GOLD MINE SITE IN WESTERN AUSTRALIA AND IMPLICATIONS FOR LONG-TERM ISSUES

2006· article· en· W2314251456 on OpenAlexaff
Shannon Shaw, Jason M. Martin, Greg Meiers, Mike O’Kane, Christoph Wels

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal American Society of Mining and Reclamation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsInro Consultants (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMining engineeringTerm (time)GeologyCharacterization (materials science)ArchaeologyGeographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Jundee mine site is an open pit and underground gold mine located 50 km northeast of the township of Wiluna in central Western Australia's desert. Jundee lies within the Archaean Yandal greenstone belt of the Western Australian goldfield. The area is deeply weathered and overlain by a thin veneer of alluvium and ferricrete. With the exception of satellite pits, open pit mining at Jundee ceased in 2002 and a number of open-cuts are being partially backfilled by waste rock, or tailings or left to flood with water. The primary sulfides in the waste rock and wall rock are pyrite and arsenopyrite. Carbonates are extensive on the site, consisting predominantly of calcite and ankerite. Given the rock types, mineralization and hydrothermal alteration of the waste rock, acid rock drainage is not anticipated; however, there is the potential for neutral drainage metal leaching and related water quality issues. Secondary mineral precipitates in localized areas include: hexahydrite, halite, gypsum, basanite, siderite and hematite. This paper describes the characterization program implemented, the results obtained and the implications for long-term issues at the site.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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 venueJournal American Society of Mining and ReclamationSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207