Thirty years of tailings history from Tailings & Mine Waste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By virtue of its long-running success, and the many contributed technical papers, the proceedings of the Tailings \n& Mine Waste and predecessor conferences present a good opportunity to review and consider the progress that \nhas been made in the design, operation, and closure of tailings facilities world-wide. This paper explores thirty \nand more years of tailings facility design, operation, and closure by way of a survey of some of the best and \nsome of the seminal technical papers that have been published in the proceedings of the conferences on \nUranium Mill Tailings and Tailings & Mine Waste. The story told in this paper is of the movement from simple \nupstream hydraulic fill, through larger and higher earth and rock embankments, to thickened and polymeramended \ntailings. The story told is one of advancing from an emphasis on operation to a modern mind-set of \ndesign and operate for closure to integrate closed facilities into a final stable landscape.[All papers were considered for technical and language appropriateness by the organizing committee.]
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".