MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387270590 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2315_090

A framework for managing contaminants at legacy mine sites

2023· article· en· W4387270590 on OpenAlexaff
Kristine Novakowski, Andrew Bruemmer, Barbara Gail Wernick

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceContaminationMining engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contaminant management at legacy and abandoned mines can be a complex and lengthy process, and often involves the management of more than one type of contaminant and contaminant source.This can be compounded by naturally occurring contaminants (e.g.metals, nutrients) in certain sedimentary rock formations that may be associated with coal, phosphate, uranium, or metals resources.Exposure of this rock and its placement as waste rock during mining can enhance the release of naturally derived "contaminants" through operations, closure, and reclamation.Upon entering receiving environment areas, the interaction between certain contaminants and receiving waters can enhance transformation into more biologically available forms that may be taken up more readily into the aquatic food chain.For mines that have already stopped operating, addressing risks associated with the ongoing release of bioavailable contaminants can be challenging.Legacy and abandoned mines can benefit from a site-specific management plan that characterises how contaminants move on the site and in the environment, and outlines and evaluates best achievable alternatives to mitigate the potential for effects.We developed an adaptive framework that outlines the relationship among effects linkages from sources, transport pathways, and aquatic receptors, and site-specific factors influencing contaminant fate and transport such as geochemical processes and water management.The framework is a tool that can be used to develop a pollution prevention hierarchy that prioritises source control followed by water management and treatment approaches, and potential mitigation activities with short-and long-term application, including site characterisation and monitoring needs.The use of this framework allows for a methodical and streamlined review of available site information, identification and filling of data gaps, and identification and evaluation of mitigation options that will complement closure activities.This paper will describe the development of the plan framework and its' application to address a variety of challenging contaminant management issues.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.321
Threshold uncertainty score0.619

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMine closureSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207