The Development and Implementation of a Comprehensive Seismic Risk Management Plan at Agnico-Eagle's LaRonde Mine
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The LaRonde mine is characterised by a foliated, highly deformable rock mass. Previous work has documented the influence of foliation on rock mass behaviour and the resulting deformation observed in the vicinity of excavations. However, as the spacing of the foliation planes increases within the mine there is an observed transition in behaviour, from high deformation to seismogenic. Consequently, significant levels of seismicity are recorded in areas of competent rock. These can occasionally be accompanied by rockburst occurrences. Since the introduction of a mine-wide seismic system in 2003, seismic data have been employed along with field observations in order to develop site-specific strategies to address seismic risk as it evolves in the mine. The resulting mitigation measures have been refined on a continuous basis in order to minimise workforce exposure to seismic risk. Currently, seismic risk management is an integral part of mining at LaRonde. Recently the mine went a step beyond “traditional” seismic risk management methods by developing a formal “Seismic Risk Management Plan”. This document serves as a compilation of rockbursting and seismicity issues at LaRonde and how these issues are being addressed by mine management. The resulting plan has been constructed in such a way that its key components and their application can be verified by quantifiable internal and external audits.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it