MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7098275805

DESIGN CRITERIA AND SAFETY EVALUATIONS AT CLOSURE

2015· article· en· W7098275805 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicMachine Learning in Materials Science
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsClosure (psychology)Tailings damSafety caseCommissionDam failure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.097

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMachine Learning in Materials ScienceFrench-language works237,207