MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156450351 · doi:10.24908/iqurcp.10083

10. Mature Fine Tailings Management in Oil Sands Mining

2018· article· en· W3156450351 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christina Lynch

Bibliographic record

VenueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference Proceedings · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsOil sandsConsolidation (business)Environmental scienceDirectiveWaste managementPetroleum engineeringMining engineeringBusinessEngineeringComputer scienceChemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oil sands mining operations produce mature fine tailings (MFT), composed mainly of clay particles suspended in water, that requires decades to consolidate, currently taking up a great deal of storage space in tailings containment facilities. This in turn decreases recycling of process affected water and creates the need to use more land for tailings storage. As mandated by the Alberta Energy Regulator’s Directive 074, oil sands producers must provide tailing management plans to remove and consolidate 50% of the MFT produced into trafficable deposits annually as of 2013. Oil sands producers have failed to meet the Directive 074 goal, as current technology does not provide economical and time efficient methods of consolidating MFT. Current technologies including consolidated tailings, centrifugation, freeze/thaw and thickened tailings were reviewed and compared to recently proposed technologies not currently used in the oil sands. The most effective technology or combination thereof for the treatment and consolidation of MFT is determined with the main focus being cost effectiveness and time efficiency.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInquiry Queen s Undergraduate Research Conference ProceedingsSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207