MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583340321

The design of stable pillars in the Bushveld Complex mines: a problem solved?

2011· article· en· W1583340321 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueUpSpace Institutional Repository (University of Pretoria) · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMining engineeringGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper gives an overview of the difficulties associated with
\ndetermining the strength of hard-rock pillars. Although a number
\nof pillar design tools are available, pillar collapses still occur. Recent
\nexamples of large-scale pillar collapses in South Africa suggest that
\nthese were caused by weak partings that traversed the pillars.
\nCurrently two different methods are used to determine the strength
\nof pillars, namely, empirical equations derived from back analyses
\nof failed and stable cases, and numerical modelling tools using
\nappropriate failure criteria. The paper illustrates that both
\ntechniques have their limitations and additional work is required to
\nobtain a better understanding of pillar strength.
\nEmpirical methods based on observations of pillar behaviour in
\na given geotechnical setting are popular and easy to use, but care
\nshould be exercised that the results are not inappropriately extrapolated
\nbeyond the environment in which they are established. An
\nexample is the Hedley and Grant formula (derived for the Canadian
\nuranium mines), which has been used for many years in the South
\nAfrican platinum and chrome mines (albeit with some adaptation of
\nthe K-value). Very few collapses have been reported in South Africa
\nfor layouts designed using this formula, suggesting that in some
\ncases it might yield estimates of pillar strength that are too conservative.
\nAs an alternative, some engineers strongly advocate the use of
\nnumerical techniques to determine pillar strength. A close
\nexamination unfortunately reveals that these techniques also rely
\non many assumptions. An area where numerical modelling is
\ninvaluable, however, is in determining pillar stresses accurately and
\nfor studying specific pillar failure mechanisms, such as the influence
\nof weak partings on pillar strength.
\nIn conclusion, it appears that neither empirical techniques nor
\nnumerical modelling can be used solely to provide a solid basis for
\nconducting pillar design. It is therefore recommended that both
\nthese techniques should be utilized to obtain the best possible
\ninsight into a given design problem. Owing to the uncertainties
\nregarding pillar strength and loading stiffness, monitoring in trial
\nmining sections and in established mining areas is also an essential
\ntool to test the stability of pillar layouts in particular geotechnical
\nareas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.385
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.172
Teacher spread0.139 · 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