MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7017944209

Consolidation testing of oil sand fine tailings

2011· article· en· W7017944209 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics
Canadian institutionsSuncor Energy (Canada)SoilVision Systems (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNucleofectionHyporeflexiaTSG101Gestational periodLiquationFusible alloy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the results of several tests performed on a sample of Mature Fine Tailings (MFT) in which the consolidation is induced by seepage forces in the laboratory and by increased gravity level in a geotechnical centrifuge. These tests are particularly suitable for testing soft slurries. The test with seepage forces, the Seepage Induced Consolidation Test (SICT), is used to obtain compressibility and permeability characteristics of the tailings material while the centrifuge modeling test is used to independently verify the obtained properties. The analyses for both tests recognize that the void ratio (solids content) within each sample is variable and no restrictive assumptions are made on the variability of the consolidation properties of the sample. The presented results confirm that the SICT is applicable to the testing of oil sand MFT, and produce repeatable datasets that are useful in building an understanding of the behaviour of these high void ratio materials. While these findings are encouraging, some peculiarities observed in the experiments suggest that more detailed studies will be required before the results could be applied to field conditions with confidence.[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 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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.149
Teacher spread0.136 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicGeotechnical Engineering and Soil Mechanics→French-language works237,207→