DESIGN CRITERIA AND SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT CLOSURE
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of currently available dam safety guidelines do not account well for the specifics of tailings dams. In the guidelines commonly used in Canada, tailings dams are addressed alongside water retention (conventional) dams. This results in an user-unfriendly, and potentially unsafe and/or inappropriate, treatment of safety aspects specific to tailings dams. A number of guidelines developed for tailings dams have been published by the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD). Except for one of those guidelines (ICOLD 1989), a focus on the tailings dam safety is not provided. In particular, there seem to be very few and largely incomplete guidelines that speak to dam safety aspects specific to the tailings dam closure phase. Unlike for a conventional dam that would typically be breached upon the end of its useful life, the closure phase will be by far the longest state of being for a tailings dam, regardless of how long the dam was in operational use. This paper identifies and examines a number of tailings dam design criteria and safety requirements applicable to the closure phase, and concludes that many of such requirements must currently be selected on a case-by-case basis without support of sufficiently comprehensive guidelines.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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 it