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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first standardised Geotechnical Assessment Process for identifying and assessing geotechnical risks at Teck Coal’s open pit mining operations was developed and implemented in 2012. This work was started as a corporate initiative because Teck, as a publicly traded company, desired to demonstrate industry-best practices for managing geotechnical risks and to develop Teck Coal corporate geotechnical standards. Furthermore, corporate geotechnical standards and a consistently high level of geotechnical practice are required as part of the safe and profitable execution of the potential expansions at Teck Coal’s operating sites and the possible development of additional mines. This paper describes the three stage Geotechnical Assessment Process – the application of an assessment tool to scrutinise the geotechnical aspects of mine design, operation and closure, the categorisation and ranking of identified geotechnical risks, and the development of action plans to mitigate the risks. The assessment tool was developed in-house because there were no suitable published or publicly-available procedures. The risk categorisation and ranking procedure was adapted from the existing Teck stage gating process used for major projects. The ranked risks were grouped by common themes, and then used as the basis for developing site-specific ‘Project Initiatives’ that list actionable steps to ensure that each site’s geotechnical systems and processes are aligned with Teck Coal’s emerging standardised approach for identifying and managing the geotechnical risks at existing operations and for potential expansions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
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 it