MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413382839 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2024-0656

Ex situ hyperspectral sensing and machine learning for tailings characterization

2025· article· en· W4413382839 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph R. Bindner, Christopher A. Bareither, Joseph Scalia

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsConetec Investigations
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsHyperspectral imagingGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMining engineeringRemote sensingMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding tailings properties at high spatial resolutions is needed for many geotechnical analyses. While tailings properties can be characterized using undisturbed samples and in situ tests, the current methods face limitations regarding adequate spatial resolution and comprehensive property assessment. This study explores the use of hyperspectral sensing and convolutional neural networks for the simultaneous prediction of 12 tailings properties, including percent sand, silt, clay, fines content, solids content, gravimetric moisture content, volumetric moisture content, saturation, void ratio, porosity, total density, and dry density. Tailings from a precious metal mine were used to prepare samples with diverse properties and hyperspectral data were captured. The tailings-hyperspectral dataset was then split into training and testing subsets, a convolutional neural network was optimized and trained, and the model’s performance was assessed using the testing data. The prediction of particle size distribution metrics and moisture metrics have root mean squared errors below 8% with coefficients of determinations above 0.95. Predictions of void ratio, porosity, total density, and dry density have poorer performance than other properties. However, density predictions have lower errors for samples with high saturation. Results show promise for the rapid characterization of tailings properties using hyperspectral data.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.841
Threshold uncertainty score0.420

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207