Numerical Study of Sediment and Chemical Transport in the Lower Athabasca River Due to a Tailings Dam Breach Spill and in the Context of Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RÉSUMÉ: Les barrages de résidus sont connus pour causer des accidents et ont déjà été la cause d'accidents mortels. Maintenant que cette question est posée, quelles seront les conséquences de la rupture possible des digues à résidus, et ces effets persisteront-ils au fil du temps ? Ces barrages offrent la possibilité de stocker à grande échelle et pour une longue durée les déchets issus du processus d'extraction minière. Rien qu'au cours du siècle actuel, qui s'est écoulé depuis près de 2 décennies, 11 ruptures graves de ces barrages ont été signalées, et il semble que ce nombre soit en augmentation. Dans le même temps, la probabilité de défaillance et d'effondrement des digues à résidus est plus élevée que dans les barrages hydrauliques, et cela s'explique par leur utilisation industrielle. Les barrages hydrauliques sont des structures fiables qui sont utilisées pour stocker l'eau et être efficaces dans son utilisation, tandis que les barrages à résidus sont utilisés pour stocker les résidus qui ne sont pas nécessaires. En conséquence, nous préférons dépenser le moins d'argent pour leur construction. Pour répondre à la question de savoir pourquoi une digue à résidus s'effondre, plusieurs raisons peuvent être avancées, telles que le poids imposé à la digue à la suite de fortes pluies et la faiblesse des fondations de la digue. De plus, la transformation des déchets solides en une substance liquide peut entraîner le rejet de déchets à la surface de l'eau et dans les eaux souterraines, ce qui constitue une menace pour la faune. ABSTRACT: Tailings dams are notorious for causing accidents and have been the cause of fatal accidents before. Now this question is raised, what consequences will befall us due to the possible failure of tailings dams, and will these effects still remain over time? These dams provide the possibility of storing wastes from the mineral extraction process on a large scale and for a long time. Only in the current century, which has passed nearly 2 decades, 11 serious breaks in these dams have been reported, and it seems that this number is increasing. At the same time, the probability of failure and collapse of tailings dams are higher than in water dams, and the reason for this is their industrial use. Water dams are reliable structures that are used to store water and be efficient in its use, while tailings dams are used to store residues that are not needed. As a result, we prefer to spend the least amount of money on their construction. To answer the question of why a tailings dam collapses, several reasons can be put forward, such as the weight that is imposed on the dam as a result of heavy rains and the weak foundation of the dam. Also, the transformation of solid waste into a liquid substance can lead to the discharge of waste to the water surface and underground water, which is a threat to wildlife. Many historic catastrophic tailings dams failures in Canada have raised concerns about the risk associated with oil-sands tailings, such as safety and environmental impacts. Therefore, it has increased the interest to investigate the potential effects of the failure of an oil sand tailings dam on the water quality as well as the adjacent lands in the downstream area. Studying and modeling the flow after the failure of tailings dams creates its own difficulties due to the non-Newtonian behavior of tailings materials. This study aims to numerically investigate the flow of dam breach tailings on oil sands tailings dams.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".