Bibliographic record
Abstract
Optimisation of paste backfill specifications is an area of development in mine backfill operations and is practiced at several sites, with backfill mixtures tailored specifically for each stope. This, however, remains the exception rather than the rule across the industry. Often mines employ suboptimal backfill recipes which do not properly leverage the three principal components of a backfill specification, namely: strength, rheology, and curing time. This is compounded by limitations in material characterisation data and the means to develop and integrate this within reliable hydraulic models. Developing a strategy for determining this unique specification provides opportunities for improved backfill reticulation operation and binder minimisation while ensuring that the performance of the backfill aligns with the mining requirements and schedule. The paper describes how, through the use of material test work data, relationships linking these three performance criteria together can determine the optimal paste backfill specification. Case example data is used to demonstrate the analysis process and how a software solution developed by Paterson & Cooke can be used to enable its application in everyday operation.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.006 |
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".