A Failure Modes and Effects Analysis Framework for Assessing Geotechnical Risks of Tailings Dam Closure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tailings dams remain on site following mine closures and must be designed and reclaimed to meet long-term goals, which may include walk-away closure or long-term care and maintenance. The underperformance of these structures can result in significant risks to public and environmental safety, as well as impacts on the future land use and economic activities near the structure. In Alberta, Canada, the expectation is for a tailings dam to be reclaimed and closed so that it can undergo deregistration. To aid in assessing the risks of underperformance during and after closure, a Generalized Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (G-FMEA) framework was developed to assess the long-term geotechnical risks for tailings dams in Alberta, with the goal of assessing the potential success of a tailings dam closure strategy. The G-FMEA is part of an initiative to enhance closure evaluations in Alberta in a collaborative effort between industry, the regulator, and academia. The G-FMEA incorporates the element of time to account for the evolution of the system, which should be applied at the planning stage and updated continually throughout the life of the facility. This paper presents the developed G-FMEA framework for tailings dams in Alberta, including the developed risk matrix framework.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".