MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995264422 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2019-0019

The critical state line of nonplastic tailings

2019· article· en· W2995264422 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luis Alberto Torres-Cruz, J. Carlos Santamarina

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsTailingsVoid ratioGeotechnical engineeringSoil waterParticle-size distributionGrain sizeParticle sizeSoil scienceGeologyMaterials scienceEnvironmental scienceComposite materialMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The probability of failure of tailing dams and associated risks demand improvements in engineering practice. The critical state line provides a robust framework for the characterization of mine tailings. New experimental data for nonplastic platinum tailings and a large database for tailings and nonplastic soils (grain size between 2 and 500 μm) show that the critical state parameters for nonplastic tailings follow the same trends as nonplastic soils as a function of particle-scale characteristics and extreme void ratios. Critical state lines determined for extreme tailings gradations underestimate the range of critical state parameters that may be encountered in a tailings dam; in fact, mixtures with intermediate fines content exhibit the densest granular packing at critical state. The minimum void ratio e min captures the underlying role of particle shape and grain size distribution on granular packing and emerges as a valuable index property to inform sampling strategies for the assessment of spatial variability. Mineralogy does not significantly affect the intercept Γ 100 , but it does affect the slope λ. The friction coefficients M of tailings are similar to those of other nonplastic soils; while mineralogy does not have a significant effect on friction, more angular grains lead to higher friction coefficients.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.240
Threshold uncertainty score0.499

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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