On the Use of Sand Washing Slimes for Waste Containment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sand mining has long been practiced in the southeast sand belt of Melbourne o obtain clean sand for use in construction. The material remaining after the sand extraction, which generally exists in a sludge or slurry form, is commonly referred to as slimes. Since the late 1960s most of the abandoned sand mining pits have been used for waste disposal. Due to the unique hydrogeology of the region, the use of slime cut-off walls has become an essential consideration in the design of waste containment facilitiesin abandoned sand mining pits. One technique to isolate the landfills from adjoining shallow aquifers is to construct cut-off walls using hydraulically placed slimes from sand mining (fines washed from the sand). This involves placing wet sand washing slimes mixed with clean fill to achieve a low permeability slurry curtain around the landfill walls. Another alternative successfully used is the use of a sidewall liner in which there is a combination of compacted refuse bales and slimes. This paper presents and discusses various facets linked to this innovative method for using slimes in waste containment systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".