MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404106002 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2024.2398194

Climate resiliency of a tailings management facility: case study of Mont-Wright mine

2024· article· en· W4404106002 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Khalil Hashem, Laxmi Sushama, Agus P. Sasmito

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsTailingsWrightEnvironmental scienceEngineeringMining engineeringMetallurgyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the climate resiliency of the Mont-Wright mine tailings management facility (TMF) in Quebec, Canada, with a focus on tailings erosion and flooding. Ultra-high resolution (1 km) climate simulations of the global environmental multiscale (GEM) model, spanning the current (2001–2020) and future (2041–2060) periods, form the basis of this study. Comparison of GEM model outputs against gridded observation data suggests reasonable performance of the model in simulating TMF-relevant climate variables, giving confidence in the model. The analysis indicates potential increases in tailings erosion rates of up to 6% (0.01 g/m2s) for the future period due to elevated wind-induced shear stress. Floods, represented in terms of probable maximum flood, reveal future increases in magnitudes of up to 20% in summer/fall for durations of 12–72 h. Increases of up to 17% are projected for spring for the 72-h duration, with decreases noted for other durations due to precipitation efficiency reductions. The projected small increases in erosion rates, in absolute terms, are not deemed to be of any major concern. As for projected increases in flooding, Mont-Wright mine’s climate-change adaptation strategy, which is aligned with existing Quebec guidelines, seems reasonable to mitigate flooding impacts.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.676
Threshold uncertainty score0.417

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designOther design
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
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM JournalSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207