MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404624246 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2024-0207

Effect of aquatic worms and straw amendments on the geotechnical and biogeochemical properties of oil sands tailings

2024· article· en· W4404624246 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Petr Kuznetsov, Amy‐lynne Balaberda, Miguel de Lucas Pardo, Ania C. Ulrich

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicPetroleum Processing and Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanada's Oil Sands Innovation AllianceAlberta InnovatesUniversity of AlbertaInstitute for Oil Sands Innovation, University of AlbertaImperial Oil Limited
KeywordsTailingsBiogeochemical cycleOil sandsGeotechnical engineeringTailings damEnvironmental scienceStrawRice strawGeologyMining engineeringEcologyAgronomyArchaeologyGeographyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquatic Oliogochaete worms ( Lumbriculus variegatus) combined with straw led to improved geotechnical properties of fluid fine tailings (FFT) and thickened tailings (TT) in large-scale column studies. Gravity settling caused 19.9% and 20.6% consolidation of FFT and TT over 125 and 127 days, while the addition of straw and worms increased consolidation to 22.0%–24.3% for FFT and 28.1%–28.9% for TT. Solids content and yield stress were up to 1.1x and 6.6x higher in straw and worm columns, with greatest improvements seen in the top tailings layers where worm tunnels were visually observed. Surviving worms were only found in one column, suggesting the worms provide benefits extending past their depth of penetration and lifespan. The addition of straw stimulated methanogenic activity, decreasing pH, increasing alkalinity, and creating strictly anaerobic conditions (−300 mV), which may have impacted the survivability of the worms but provided another bioconsolidation pathway.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicPetroleum Processing and Analysis→French-language works237,207→