MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794533913 · doi:10.1080/17480930.2018.1453320

Mathematical modelling of cemented tailings backfill: a review

2018· review· en· W2794533913 on OpenAlexaff
Liang Cui, Mamadou Fall

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining Reclamation and Environment · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultiphysicsMathematical modelMechanism (biology)Computer scienceEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringFinite element methodMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper provides a comprehensive understanding and unique aspects of modelling cemented paste backfill (CPB) behaviour and performance under complex multiphysics conditions. Such modelling is essential for the reliable and cost-effective design of CPB structures. In this review paper, the existing mathematical models are classified into three categories, which are analytical, mechanical constitutive and coupled multiphysics models. For each category, a critical discussion of each model is carried out to identify its applicability and potential further developments with a comparison of the corresponding controlling mechanism. Then, a comparison of the existing models is provided for each category of mathematical models.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.633

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations29
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mining Reclamation and EnvironmentSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207