MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367155182 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2355_43

A cost-effective tailings solution to rheology issues while meeting the environmental constraints using inexpensive additives

2023· article· en· W4367155182 on OpenAlexaff
Yee‐Kwong Leong, Scott Bensley, Jason Drewett, Scott Burkett

Bibliographic record

VenuePaste/˜Pœaste · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsBanff CentreGeomechanica (Canada)University of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsRheologyEnvironmental scienceWaste managementProcess engineeringComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental economicsMaterials scienceEngineeringMetallurgyComposite materialEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A significant quantity of tailings is produced in the wet beneficiation of iron ore. These tailings are flocculated and thickened in a thickener before being pumped to a tailings storage facility TSF, i.e., a pond, which can be several km away. Occasionally, the thickened tailings acquired a higher yield stress than can be pumped. This material then becomes a bottleneck reducing the plant output. This study demonstrates how to reduce these problematic tailings’ yield stress or viscosity with a cheap additive. NaOH costing ~ US 400 per tonne resulted in a 50-60% reduction in the yield stress at pH 10 and ~ 90% reduction in the viscosity at 100s-1. The legislated environmental constraints are i) the pH of the disposed of tailings must be less than 10 and ii) any chemical leachate of heavy metal ions must be less than stock drinking water guidelines or water table water. Leaching results showed this was the case for all leachate chemicals evaluated up to pH 11.2. Some leachate chemicals evaluated were As, B, Cr, Cu, Mo, Pb, Se, Th, Ti, U and V. However, not all tailings (from different mines) respond to NaOH treatment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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