A Modified Oxygen Consumption Test to Evaluate Gas Flux through Oxygen Barrier Cover Systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evaluation of an oxygen barrier cover performance is an integral part of many reclamation programs that aim at limiting acid mine drainage (AMD) production from sulphide tailings. The oxygen flux through the cover to the underlying reactive tailings should then be much smaller (by a factor of 1000 or more) than the flux into exposed (uncovered) tailings. Different techniques have been developed over the years to assess this flux. Given the limitations encountered when using available approaches to measure such low oxygen flux, the authors have developed a modified testing and interpretation method based on the oxygen consumption (OC) test, which is commonly used to determine oxidation rates of uncovered tailings. The proposed modifications to the OC testing procedure are presented in this paper, together with the new interpretation method. Typical tests results obtained with the modified OC method on an existing site, reclaimed using a layered cover with capillary barrier effects (CCBE), are presented and discussed. The results demonstrate that the modified oxygen consumption (MOC) test is an effective tool to assess the performance of oxygen barrier covers used to prevent AMD.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".