MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2805701687 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0032

Mechanical behaviour of Panzhihua iron tailings

2018· article· en· W2805701687 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
W. Li, M. R. Coop

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersChangzhou Institute of TechnologyCity University of Hong Kong
KeywordsTailingsLiquefactionGeotechnical engineeringGeologyCompression (physics)Mining engineeringEnvironmental scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgyComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Safety problems have concerned many researchers studying tailings dams in recent years, as they have a high risk of failure due to liquefaction. Existing analysis of liquefaction in tailings within a critical state framework has relied on the critical state line (CSL) being unique in the volumetric plane. However, recent advances have highlighted a so-called “transitional” behaviour in which the location of the normal compression line (NCL) and CSL is a function of the density of the soils at deposition. This paper presents a detailed investigation of the mechanics of tailings taken from three locations of an iron tailings impoundment. Reconstituted samples were prepared by different methods and at different densities. No transitional behaviour was found, although the results show that the rate of convergence of the compression curves changes, with the finest pond material reaching a unique NCL earliest. The preparation method was found not to have a large effect on the behaviour for these tailings. Unique CSLs could be clearly identified for all the three tailings, but with different shapes, giving rise to a changing susceptibility to liquefaction. This susceptibility tends to increase from the pond to the upper beach.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations98
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207