MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128300700 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2020.1734406

Tailings dam closure scenarios, risk communication, monitoring, and surveillance in Alberta

2020· article· en· W3128300700 on OpenAlexaffabout
Haley L. Schafer, Renato Macciotta, Nicholas Beier

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsClosure (psychology)Tailings damLeverage (statistics)Environmental planningEngineeringEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental sciencePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tailings dams remain as a part of the landscape in perpetuity following mine closure. As many mines approach closure in the province of Alberta, Canada, it is becoming increasingly important to understand the long-term geotechnical behavior of these facilities and the impact of various loading and environmental scenarios over long time periods. Research surrounding the closure of tailings dams has historically focused on planning for closure, with a limited focus on how the facility may evolve over time. This gap in research has implications for the design and development of policies that adequately account for long-term risk and uncertainty. This paper summarizes key themes identified during interviews conducted with skilled practitioners to leverage their experiences and help fill the knowledge gap surrounding the long-term behavior and policy-making for tailings dams. These include the impact of recent tailings dam failures, long-term monitoring and surveillance, potential closure scenarios, and risk communication.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.606

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0070.005
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.193 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM JournalSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207