Revue de divers aspects liés à la stabilité géotechnique des ouvrages de retenue de résidus miniers: Partie II – Analyse et conception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tailings dikes are still prone to relatively frequent failures due to geotechnical instability. The general problem related to stability of such retaining works has been presented in part I. In this part II, the main factors that affect the stability of dikes are reviewed. Typical tools used to analyse the behavior of these engineering works are described, with an emphasis on the effects of critical events such as large precipitations and earthquakes. The article also discusses new avenues that help control the problems, including the use of waste rock inclusions in the tailings impoundment. Les digues des parcs à résidus miniers sont, encore aujourd’hui, sujettes à des défaillances relativement fréquentes suite à des instabilités géotechniques. La problématique générale liée à la stabilité de ces ouvrages de retenue a été présentée dans la partie I. Dans cette partie II, on revoit les principaux facteurs qui affectent la stabilité des digues. Les outils typiquement utilisés pour analyser le comportement des ouvrages sont décrits, en mettant l’emphase sur l’effet des événements critiques comme les pluies abondantes et les séismes. L’article discute aussi de nouvelles avenues pour aider à contrôler certains problèmes, incluant l’utilisation d’inclusions de roches stériles dans les parcs à résidus miniers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".