Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saskatchewan's potash producing companies are now in the process of developing decommissioning and reclamation (D&R) plans for potash mines which were in operation many years before these plans were required by provincial regulations. The major problem is to develop a plan for the extensive piles of potash tails now stored on the surface in tails management areas. There are many features of potash mining which are unique to the mining industry. These include mining operations, refining processes, waste characteristics, waste management techniques, mine life, land tenure, public concern, pre-mining environment, and environmental risks. The D&R techniques commonly employed for tails have been considered for use on potash tails piles and have been found to be unsuitable. Potash operations in other jurisdictions have not decommissioned tails piles to a standard which would be acceptable in Saskatchewan. Since there are no precedents to use as a guide, the Saskatchewan industry and regulatory agency have cooperated in developing a novel approach to D&R planning. Because of the features unique to the industry and because of the fundamental differences between the regulatory agency and the industry about the magnitude of the risk inherent to potash tails, early in the process, it was agreed to assess the acceptability of various D&R proposals through a decision process which employed cost benefit analysis. Another area of disagreement between the parties was resolved by developing and using contaminant transport models to predict the subsurface movement of brine from the waste management areas through a multilayered environment, a unique problem requiring a unique approach. The D&R planning process being employed for potash mines in Saskatchewan has been formalized through the development of a flow diagram which is being followed to arrive at a solution acceptable to all parties.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".