MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225113236 · doi:10.11159/icgre22.241

Tailings Dams Numerical Models: A Review

2022· review· en· W4225113236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Andrea Geppetti, Johann Facciorusso, Claudia Madiai

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsNumerical modelsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMining engineeringGeologyComputer simulationSimulationMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant number of tailings dam failures have occurred around the world in the last few decades resulting in fatalities, damage to infrastructure and environmental harm. Among these, many have been caused by the liquefaction phenomenon that can suddenly transform an earthen dam into a liquid river of mud. To date, many general aspects related to tailings dam failures and tailing management have been dealt with in the literature. However, the materials used to build the dams, mainly consisting of underconsolidated silts, are still poorly studied and adequate modeling of their behavior is still an open challenge. This paper presents the state of existing knowledge on this latter topic. The problem related to the storage of mining residues in tailings dams is first described. For this purpose, fifteen scientific articles, in which numerical modeling is carried out on this type of structures, are analyzed. Aspects relating to the type of structure investigated and connected to numerical modeling such as software and constitutive models used are reported and commented. A summary of the main geotechnical parameters used in the modeling is presented and analyzed. Finally, the most salient aspects of the results obtained from the various analysis are exposed.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207