MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404461581 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2415_48

Study: Selbaie Mine, Quebec, Canada

2024· article· en· W4404461581 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Chad Salewich

Bibliographic record

VenueMine closure · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMineralogy and Gemology Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMining engineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Selbaie Mine site (‘the Site’) located in northern Quebec, Canada, is a former copper-zinc mine that operated between 1983 and 2004; rehabilitation works began in 2000 and were largely completed by 2006. A closure plan for the site was submitted to regulatory authorities in 1996 and updated in 2003. Two primary domains at the Site include a tailings management area (TMA) and waste rock dump (WRD), with most of the waste material being net acid generating. The 1996 Closure Plan included the following for the two primary domains: Waste rock piles (approximately 34 million tonnes at the end of mining) will continue to generate acid leachate for decades and even centuries, with or without a soil cover. The most cost-effective way to control this problem is to capture and treat the acid leaching products from the waste rock piles on a -term basis. The TMA contains a very large amount of sulphur and metals (40 million tonnes of tailings after operations), of which most remain saturated in the long-term and are therefore not prone to leaching acid or metal products. However, it is neither practical nor cost-effective to prevent the formation of local unsaturated tailings areas and unsaturated reactive waste rock areas on the perimeters of the dams that will be subject to acidic and metal product leaching. Therefore, the capture and treatment of acid leaching products from the tailings pond is necessary in the long-term. Ultimately closure covers were constructed over the TMA and WRD using a nominal 1 m thick soil cover comprised of local silty-sand till material followed by seeding the cover surfaces with a mixture of native grasses and legumes. The purpose of the TMA cover was to maintain saturated tailings to the extent practicable, while the cover on the WRD was intended to limit net percolation of meteoric water through water-shedding and store-and-release processes. Overall, the Site is underperforming due to the design and post-closure performance of the WRD and there is risk that additional desaturation of the TMA could result in acidic seepage from the TMA. Acidic seepage from the TMA would require additional effort and cost related to water treatment, maintenance, and surveillance activities at the Site. This paper describes the operation and performance of the Site with a focus on the TMA and WRD. The case study reinforces the need to use benchmarking, cover trials, and the fact that mine closure needs to start early and be progressive to avoid relatively high post-closure maintenance requirements and costs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMine closureSame topicMineralogy and Gemology StudiesFrench-language works237,207