MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2509318022 · doi:10.1061/9780784480137.034

Review of the Reclamation Techniques for Acid-Generating Mine Wastes upon Closure of Disposal Sites

2016· article· en· W2509318022 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeo-Chicago 2016 · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMine drainage and remediation techniques
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcid mine drainageTailingsLand reclamationLimitingEnvironmental scienceWaste managementClosure (psychology)Waste disposalDrainageMining engineeringEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acid mine drainage (AMD) remains a major environmental challenge for the mining industry. The preferred options for effectively limiting the environmental impact of AMD consist in controlling the reactions through the use of preventative techniques. Their principal objective is to exclude at least one of the constitutive elements of the chemical reactions, i.e. water, oxygen, or sulfidic minerals. The article recalls the basic principles and reviews different approaches for the prevention and control of AMD upon mine closure. The main methods include multi-layer covers, water covers, and an elevated water table (with a mono-layer cover). Their main advantages, limitations and uncertainties are addressed. Alternative approaches, such as environmental desulphurization and co-disposal of waste rock and tailings, are also discussed.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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