MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135772532 · doi:10.14288/1.0314230

Procedures for estimating seismic permanent displacements on tailings storage facilities and mine waste dumps

2017· article· en· W3135772532 on OpenAlexaff
Keith Pérez, Eder Tapia, Andrés Reyes, Renzo Ayala

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsWaste managementEnvironmental scienceMunicipal solid wasteMining engineeringGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of pseudo-static procedures for assessing seismic slope stability analysis of a tailings storage facility (TSF) and a mine waste dump (MWD) is a common practice in geotechnical engineering; however, new methodologies have emerged for the calculation of seismic induced permanent displacements of earth structures, which is considered a more reliable approach compared to the calculation of a factor of safety (FOS) obtained by the pseudo-static procedure. The authors have studied the application of several methodologies to assess the seismic stability of TSF and MWD based on two case studies. One-dimensional (1D) nonlinear seismic response and slope stability analyses were performed as part of these applications. Cyclic laboratory tests on coarse tailings and mine waste were performed to evaluate their dynamic properties and were compared to current state-of-practice literature curves. The resulting displacements using these procedures proved, in general, to be similar. This research suggests that the seismic analysis should be less focused on the pseudo-static FOS as a parameter to predict the seismic stability of TSF and MWD, unless a rational criterion is chosen for the determination of the seismic coefficient.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.559
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.174
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)Same topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207