MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415775471 · doi:10.3390/min15070752

Basis for a New Life Cycle Inventory for Metals from Mine Tailings Using a Conceptual Model Tool

2025· article· en· W4415775471 on OpenAlexaff
Katherine E. Raymond, Mike O’Kane, Mark J. Logsdon, Yamini Gopalapillai, Kelsey Hewitt, Johannes Drielsma, Drake Meili

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersInternational Copper Association
KeywordsTailingsConceptual modelLife-cycle assessmentLife cycle inventorySulfateRange (aeronautics)Product life-cycle management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Life Cycle Impact Assessments (LCIAs) examine the environmental impacts of products using life cycle inventories (LCIs) of quantified inputs and outputs of a product through its life cycle. Currently, estimated impacts from mining are dominated by long-term metal release from tailings due to inaccurate assumptions regarding metal release and transport within and from mine materials. A conceptual model approach is proposed to support the development of a new database of LCI data, applying mechanistic processes required for the release and transport of metals through tailings and categorizing model inputs into ‘bins’. The binning approach argues for accuracy over precision, noting that precise metal release rates are likely impossible with the often-limited data available. Three case studies show the range of forecasted metal release rates, where even after decades of monitoring within the tailings and underlying aquifer, metal release rates span several orders of magnitude (<100 mg/L to >100,000 mg/L sulfate at the Faro Mine). The proposed tool may be useful for the development of a new database of LCI data, as well as to analyze mine’s regional considerations during designs for risk evaluation, management and control prior to development, when data is also scarce.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.481
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207