Bibliographic record
Abstract
High-purity silica sands are widespread and relatively near the surface, over large regions of the province. Cretaceous (Mannville Group), Ordovician (Winnipeg Formation) and glaciofluvial sands have been exploited in Saskatchewan since the 1930s, when Hud Bay Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. began quarrying sand for use as flux in its Flin Flon zinc smelter. However, commercial production of Saskatchewan's silica sands only began in the mid-1980s. Since then, extensive research has been carried out on these deposits, including x-ray diffraction, brightness and reflectance tests, as well as compressive strength tests and fracture analysis. Initially investigated as a source of industrial silica and as foundry material in glass production, Saskatchewan silica sands eventually found a niche market in golf course bunkers. Now, these deposits are primarily targeted as proppants for hydraulic fracturing, with recent production from the Winnipeg Formation. In 2012, Germany's K+S Group started constructing the 2.8m tpa Legacy potash solution mine, the province's first new potash mine in over 40 years, with investment of over C$4bn and initial production slated for this year. Elsewhere, BHP Billiton has invested over $3bn so far on its Jansen potash project, which has the potential to be the world's largest underground potash mine, with a projected capacity of up to 12m tpa KCl. Other global mining companies, such as Vale, Rio Tinto, JSC Acron and Yancoal Canada, are all active in potash projects in the province. In addition to working on new projects, Saskatchewan's three current potash producers - Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan (PotashCorp), The Mosaic Co., and Agrium Inc.- have committed over $14bn to roughly doubling production capacity at their 10 existing mines.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".