Laboratory Testing of Sediment Trap Efficiency of Seepage Flow through Rockfill Dyke
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of laboratory tests were conducted to evaluate the efficiency of a proposed rockfill dyke in trapping suspended sediments in seepage flow subjected to low gradient conditions. This testing was part of a project to design a tailings containment facility to be built in a large lake in Canada. The sediment trap efficiency is an important input parameter for designing the tailings confinement system and determining the need for a sand filter on the inside (tailings and pond side) face of the dyke. The scope of the laboratory testing consisted of a number of sediment trap efficiency tests for coarse rockfill, fine rockfill, gravel rockfill and tailings sand. Two types of effluent, with and without flocculation, were tested in the laboratory, to simulate these possible operating conditions in the field. The laboratory facility was set up to simulate a conservatively high seepage flow condition across the proposed tail!rigs containment dyke. The experimental results showed that the process of sediment trapping in tailings sand is different from that in rockfill. Suspended sediment in seepage flow is trapped in tailings sand by the process of filtration, whereas in rockfill, sediment trapping occurs as a result of suspended particles settling in rockfill voids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".