MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367155069 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2355_35

How high is too high? Challenges on the next generation of dewatered tailings stacks

2023· article· en· W4367155069 on OpenAlexaff
Raul Norambuena Mardones, Colleen Caldwell-Crystal, Diego Cobos Roa

Bibliographic record

VenuePaste/˜Pœaste · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsBanff CentreGeomechanica (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Building on the experience of successful smaller-scale dewatered tailings stack operations with production rates of up to 35,000 tpd, filter-pressed tailings stacking is being considered as a technically and economically viable alternative of dewatered tailings management for even higher production rates, pushing 50,000 to 100,000 tpd, involving intensive earthworks operations and intricate construction sequencing plans. The need to establish dewatered tailings solutions as a sound business option for large-scale projects in water-stressed nations like Chile and Mexico is motivated by water (the lack of availability, rising cost of water and sustainable water use) but also by dam safety, lowering the risk profile of the large conventional tailings storage facility portfolios. This paper will present the fundamental aspects of the design and operation of dewatered stacks based on practical planning and operational experience. This will ultimately provide some guidance on "how high is too high?" in the context of critical state soil mechanics and other relevant geotechnical aspects and a case study providing some reference on the planning of a dewatered stack.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.007
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.104 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaste/˜PœasteSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207