Evaluating the dry stacking performance of commingled waste rock and filtered tailings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dry stacking of filtered tailings is becoming an increasingly widespread approach to tailings management. Dry stacking can potentially offer some significant advantages over traditional tailings deposition, such as lower geotechnical risk, greater water return, much lower overall waste volume, and ease of reclamation and closure, thereby enabling a higher level of post-closure land use. However, filtration and compaction costs, and the operational complexity of dry stacking, can make it challenging. It has been shown that commingling of filtered tailings and waste rock can improve the geotechnical performance of the stack, and it has the potential to allow stacks to be constructed more rapidly in higher lifts, making dry stacking more economical for large operations. This paper presents an overview of recent research into the geotechnical properties of filtered tailings and waste rock blends. Results from a series of shear strength and consolidation tests are also presented. It is shown that the addition of waste rock to filtered tailings stacks significantly increases the shear strength and reduces the pore pressure response during placement. This could potentially allow higher and faster lifts to be stacked safely.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".