MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mitigation strategies for mining in high stress sill pillars at Coleman Mine – a case study

2014· article· en· W2615221133 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep mining · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSillGeologyMining engineeringCopper minePillarUnderground mining (soft rock)Stress (linguistics)Geotechnical engineeringGeochemistryCopperEngineeringArchaeologyCoal miningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coleman Mine, a nickel/copper producing mine for Vale in the Sudbury mining district, is a mature mine that has been in continuous production since 1991. This maturity is reflected in the amount of ore that has been mined from several major ore zones and the number of associated sill pillars, many of which are being mined or are about to be mined. In the main nickel orebody one sill pillar is being mined and two more will start to be mined within the next year. In the main copper orebody three sill pillars are being mined with one more about to be mined. With sill pillars, and other diminishing pillars, there are problems with increased stress conditions that have the potential to lead to major seismic events prior to the complete failure of the pillar. This paper describes the different mitigation strategies that have been put in place at Coleman mine to minimise the risk of major ground instabilities caused by high stress conditions associated with sill pillars.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.920

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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