Consolidation and atmospheric drying of fine oil sand tailings : Comparison of blind simulations and field scale results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a comparison between blind predictions of field tests of atmospheric drying of mature fine tailings (MFT) presented in IOSTC 2014 and field results. The numerical simulation of the consolidation and atmospheric drying of selfweight consolidating fine material is challenging and requires significant knowledge of the material, climate and the interaction between the two. This paper presents the outcome of a study which developed a numerical model, undertook material characterization and predicted the behaviour of full scale field tests undertaken in Shell Canada’s Muskeg River Mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta. The blind predictions were published in IOSTC 2014. A comparison between the observed and simulated behaviour in terms of settlement and void ratio yields a number of conclusions regarding the model: (i) all of the major observed features can be predicted by the numerical model; (ii) the quantification of the behaviour is well represented; (iii) due to the fast initial consolidation, the amount of material recorded as being deposited was underestimated; (iv) significant shear strength development requires a void ratio reduction which either requires a significant overburden or atmospheric drying.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".