MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3208481282 · doi:10.1680/jgeen.21.00114

Geostatic stress in oil-sand tailings

2021· article· en· W3208481282 on OpenAlexaff
Dawn Shuttle, Scott N. Martens, M. G. Jefferies

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical Engineering · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Natural ResourcesKlohn Crippen Berger (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsGeotechnical engineeringLift (data mining)Tailings damStress (linguistics)Petroleum engineeringOil sandsGeologyEnvironmental scienceEngineeringComputer scienceMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Horizontal geostatic stress estimated from self-bored pressuremeter (SBP) data using the ‘lift off’ method is uncertain because of even small deficiencies in self-boring, but that uncertainty can be minimised by modelling the complete test. Iterative forward modelling based on large-strain cavity expansion in frictional dilating (non-associated Mohr–Coulomb) soil, with correction for finite SBP geometry, is both easily implemented in a spreadsheet and computes quickly. Such modelling of a campaign of SBP tests in oil-sand tailings shows a baseline geostatic stress ratio K0 = 0.6 for those tailings that are truly normally consolidated. Other geological history factors, including compaction by tracking and wetting–drying cycles, adds about a Δσh ≈ 60 kPa ‘locked-in’ stress to this normally consolidated trend; an alternative view is that these factors produce K0 ≈ 1. The modelling spreadsheet is provided as a downloadable Excel application in the online supplementary material.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.181
Teacher spread0.175 · 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.

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Geotechnical EngineeringSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil MechanicsFrench-language works237,207