MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100818829

Consolidation characteristics of early age cemented paste backfill

2015· article· en· W7100818829 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConsolidation (business)CementCuring (chemistry)Compression test
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a Industrial NSERC – Polytechnique – UQAT Chair on environment and mine waste management b Canadian Research Chair on integrated management of sulphidic mine wastes by means of backfilling This paper presents a laboratory study undertaken to understand the effect of binder contents (0-control sample, 1, 3, 4.5 and 7 wt%) on one-dimensional (1-D) consolidation properties (e.g., coefficient of consolidation cv, compression index Cc and recompression index Cr) of cemented paste backfill (CPB) at curing ages of 0, 1, 3, and 7 days. Test results show that the behaviour of 1-D consolidation under time-dependent loading is greatly affected by the amount of binder used within CPB. Cc varies from 0.06 to 0.54 while Cr is between 0.0019 and 0.0081. cv decreases from 2.73x10-3 to 3.46x10-3 cm2/s over time due to the gradual formation of cement bonds during hydration. RÉSUMÉ Cet article présente une étude expérimentale entreprise pour comprendre l'effet de la proportion de liant (0-échantillon témoin, 1, 3, 4.5 et 7%) sur les propriétés de consolidation unidimensionnelle (coefficient de consolidation cv, indice de compression Cc et indice de ré-compression Cr) de remblai en pâte cimenté aux temps de curage de 0, 1, 3, et 7 jours.

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)0.000
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.176 · 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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207