MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414172416 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0070

Strength and critical state characteristics of lime-stabilised mine tailings

2025· article· en· W4414172416 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Luís Flores, Eduardo Botero Jaramillo, Miguel A. Mánica, Marcos Arroyo

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsLimePermeability (electromagnetism)CementResidual strengthCuring (chemistry)Compressive strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examines the influence of molding conditions and curing time on the mechanical characteristics of lime-stabilized mine tailings. Consolidated drained and undrained triaxial tests were conducted on reconstituted specimens with varying molding conditions and curing times, with 6% lime content, under confining pressures ranging from 48 to 200 kPa. Multi-stage oedometric tests and constant head permeability tests were also performed under these varying conditions. Scanning electron microscopy, energy dispersive spectroscopy, and X-ray fluorescence were employed to analyze changes in particle morphology and chemical composition. The results suggest that the observed changes can be mainly attributed to two mechanisms: flocculation–agglomeration and pozzolanic reactions. The former occurs shortly after lime addition and appears responsible for increases in compressibility, permeability, and the slopes of the critical state lines (CSLs) in both the compression and p′– q planes. The latter mechanism progresses over time and is responsible for an increase in yield stress, the upward shift of the CSL in the compression plane, and enhanced shear strength due to cementation. However, this latter effect is only significant when the material is reconstituted to relatively high densities. The results provide valuable insights into the effects of lime stabilization on the mechanical characteristics of mine tailing materials.

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 score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207