MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Oil sands tailings – technology developments and regulations

2010· article· en· W2811133909 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R. Houlihan, M. A. Mian, E. R. F. Lord

Bibliographic record

VenuePaste/˜Pœaste · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsOil sandsEnvironmental sciencePetroleum industryMining engineeringMineral resource classificationWaste managementPetroleum engineeringGeologyEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringAsphaltArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In response to the ever increasing volumes of fluid tailings, the Energy Resources Conservation Board of Alberta introduced in February 2009 a new regulation for tailings derived from oil sands mining. The regulation requires that 50% of the fines (defined as <44 µm) of the oil sands feed be disposed of permanently in designated disposal areas (DDA). After one year, any tailings in the DDA which do not meet the strength criterion in the regulation must be remediated in place or removed. The paper reviews the technology development, need for the regulation, its implementation and effect on tailings practices in the oil sands industry.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.552
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaste/˜PœasteSame topicPetroleum Processing and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207