MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367154920 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2355_14

Arctic backfilling: challenges and lessons-learned

2023· article· en· W4367154920 on OpenAlexaffabout
Louis-Philippe Gélinas, Jane Alcott

Bibliographic record

VenuePaste/˜Pœaste · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicArctic and Russian Policy Studies
Canadian institutionsBanff CentreGeomechanica (Canada)Agnico Eagle (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArcticComputer scienceThe arcticGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Backfill is an inherent component of the mining at Agnico Eagle Mines’ (AEM) arctic operations in Canada, Nunavut, including Amaruq, Meliadine and Hope Bay. Backfill quality is essential to limit the dilution during the mining of secondary stopes and to optimise the mining sequence in this cost-challenging environment. Backfilling with cemented rockfill (CRF) or cemented paste backfill (CPB) in Canadian Arctic conditions is demanding since many assumptions and experiences acquired in warmer temperatures are no longer applicable. Through innovative laboratory techniques, in-situ monitoring and operational lessons learned, AEM operates with various backfilling techniques adapted to the Arctic environment.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.874
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.172
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaste/˜PœasteSame topicArctic and Russian Policy StudiesFrench-language works237,207