MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017664590 · doi:10.1115/icem2001-1262

Stabilisation of Soft Tailings: Practice and Experience

2001· article· en· W3017664590 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Jakubick, Gord McKenna

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 3: Hazardous Waste; Engineered/Geological Barriers in Disposal Systems; L/ILW; Radioactive Waste From Research/Industries; Spent Fuel/HLW Disposal; Public Involvement; Remediation of Uranium Mining/Milling; LL/ILW; Clearance/Exemption Levels; Mgmt. of Fissile Material; HLW; Dismantling; Reversible/Irreversible Disposal; Waste Avoidance/Minimization; Decontamination; Liquid Waste; Radioactive Waste Processing; Transport of Spent Fuel/HLW; Solid HLW Confinement; QA/QC · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsLand reclamationConsolidation (business)DrainageTailings damGeotechnical engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmentally acceptable reclamation solutions for the decommissioned tailings ponds can be achieved by integrating the tailings deposits into the landscape either by turning the tailings pond/deposit into a lake and maintaining a permanent water cover over the deposit or by stabilisation of the deposits as a “dry” landform. Conceptually, the dry landscape reclamation involves three remedial steps: 1) Placement of an interim cover on the tailings surface to provide the consolidation load and create a stable working platform. 2) Building of a surface contour providing suitable run off conditions for the surface water. 3) Capping the surface with a final cover to control infiltration into the tailings. For reliable predictions of consolidation, proper sequencing of remedial steps/measures and cost efficient reclamation of soft tailings it is necessary to use Non Linear Finite Strain (NLFS) codes. The advantage of the NLFS program system Consol2D is that it allows the reconstruction of the history of the tailings discharge, the evaluation of the material parameters, the calculation of settlement in inhomogeneous deposits, the 3D quantification of the settlement trough and the evaluation of the drainage effect of the vertical drains.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.224 · 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