MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3044228239 · doi:10.1201/9781003078685-26

Ground control monitoring at the Nanisivik Mine

2020· book-chapter· en· W3044228239 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
N. L. Lecuyer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMining engineeringMonitoring and controlEnvironmental scienceGeologyEngineeringControl engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Nanisivik Mne is located on the 73rd parallel in the Canadian Arctic. The mine began commercial production in 1976 and has since produced over 16 million tonnes. The Main Ore Zone stretches for 3.5 km west to east and has an average width of 80 m with a height of 5–20 m. The room and pillar mining method was employed in the Main Ore Zone with approximately 800,000 tonnes remaining in pillars. During 1999, post pillar recovery commenced as an integral part of the annual mine production. Preparation for post pillar recovery was initiated a decade ago with a three phase study that addressed ground stress determinations, ground stability evaluation and a pillar recovery trial The major pillar recovery program commenced after Breakwater Resources acquired the mine in 1996. Tools such as the PIN (pillar index number) system and GMM (ground movement monitors) were developed and implemented to assist in the ground control aspect of post pillar recovery. This paper reviews the post pillar recovery plans as well as the monitoring systems utilized to ensure maximum pillar recovery coupled with maximum safety for the employees.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207