MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W319021966 · doi:10.2134/agronmonogr41.c30

Reclamation of Oil Sands Mining Areas

2000· book-chapter· en· W319021966 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAgronomy monograph/Agronomy · 2000
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsSyncrude (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand reclamationTailingsOil sandsEnvironmental scienceWetlandOverburdenExtraction (chemistry)Mining engineeringEnvironmental protectionGeologyGeographyArchaeologyEcologyAsphalt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reclamation programs are being developed and implemented by both the mine operators for all disturbed lands and for the nonrecyclable by-products of the oil extraction process. The land is being reclaimed to a state capable of supporting stable plant communities comparable to those that occur naturally and that are useable as forest cover, grasslands, wetlands, and lakes. The three major types of waste materials requiring reclamation as a result of the oil sands mining and extraction process are: overburden materials, coarse tailings sand, and fine tailings. The reclamation effort is governed by the nature and extent of the area to be reclaimed as well as requirements of government legislation. Reclamation methods are determined by: characteristics of materials to be reclaimed; availability and characteristics of materials that can be used as soil amendments; climate; and reclamation objectives.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.183 · 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