Mine Waste Management in Nepal: An Overview of Limestone Quarries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to evaluate the management of non-metallic mine waste in general, and specifically, limestone mine waste in Nepal. The authors reviewed the policy documents and the regulations, assessed the implementation of the regulations on this issue considering a few selected limestone quarry sites, and discussed how mine waste can be managed more efficiently with reference to existing practices from the developed countries. Our analysis shows that despite the challenges that exist due to complex geology, steep topography, and financial constraint associated with surface mining and waste management, the available management strategies have not been implemented adequately in the majority of the mine/quarry sites. This indicates a need for a relook into the current practices of mine waste management and formulating appropriate mine waste management-related policies of the country. The national demand for cement has been soaring, and more cement industries are operating in recent years. Consequently, the volume of the mine waste will increase in far excess of the liberated resource and it can create environmental degradation if not managed appropriately and in time. The authors recommend legislative reform and suggest the implementation of feasible management strategies at the mine sites.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".