MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2900910768 · doi:10.4095/291594

Sustainable management and rehabilitation of mine sites for decision support - remote sensing innovations and applications

2013· report· en· W2900910768 on OpenAlexaffabout
H. Peter White, Abdelgadir Abuelgasim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRehabilitationDecision support systemBusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceEngineeringGeographyEnvironmental scienceMedicineData miningPhysical therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Waste byproducts of mining activities can have environmental, social, and economic impacts. In some cases, resulting elevated concentrations of heavy metals and acid-generating tailings leave an environmental footprint that requires long-term monitoring of remediation efforts to prevent or reduce the degradation of surrounding ecosystems. In other examples, the presence of toxic, and sometimes radioactive, wastes can pose immediate health risks to nearby communities through dust dispersal and surface-water and groundwater contamination, and longer-term danger with contaminant transport throughout the regional environment. There are an estimated 27 000 orphaned and abandoned mines across Canada, and billions of dollars of remediation liability for acid-mine drainage, disruption of critical habitats, and related socio-economic impacts. Since 1991, legislation in Canada requires the mining industry to supply detailed procedures for the long-term management of mine-waste sites. Information-extraction techniques exploiting Earth Observation and remote sensing data, in the form of software tools and processing methodologies, are discussed. The remote sensing data available for this study include airborne and satellite synthetic aperture radar (SAR) imagery, multispectral and broadband optical satellite imagery, and airborne and satellite hyperspectral imagery (imaging spectrometry), and in some cases multitemporal data sets are utilized. Several in situ data sets were collected to develop and validate the techniques. Sites discussed in this study include Seal Harbour, Nova Scotia; Britannia Beach, British Columbia; Key Lake, Saskatchewan; and Sudbury, Ontario.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.601
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207