MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281639169 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-1647118/v1

Advanced tailings dam performance monitoring with seismic noise and stress models

2022· preprint· en· W4281639169 on OpenAlexaffabout
Susanne Ouellet, Jan Dettmer, Gerrit Olivier, Tjaart de Wit, Matthew Lato

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2022
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Waves and Analysis
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)University of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailings damTailingsStress (linguistics)GeologyNoise (video)Environmental scienceGeotechnical engineeringMining engineeringSeismologyComputer scienceMaterials scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Tailings dams retain the waste by-products of mining operations and are amongst the world’s largest engineered structures. Recent tailings dam failures highlight important gaps in current monitoring methods and a pressing need to advance research on tailings dam monitoring technologies, considering growth predictions for the mining of metals. At an active tailings dam in northern Canada, we combine ambient noise interferometry with a quantitative stress model to monitor shear wave velocity (V s ) changes. Changes in seismic velocities of less than 1% correlate strongly with water level fluctuations at the adjacent tailings pond. A stress model, calibrated using pond level recordings and V s profiles obtained from cone penetration tests, demonstrates that the seismic velocity changes obtained with ambient noise interferometry are predominantly changes in V s . Furthermore, this model constrains V s changes to a depth of ~16 m, corresponding to uncompacted tailings below the dam. As V s is used to assess the liquefaction potential of soils, this method provides important advances for understanding changes in dam performance over time.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.266 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicSeismic Waves and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207