Analytical model for assessing collapse risk during mountain tunnel construction
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
Risk management for safety in mountain tunnel construction is of great significance. However, existing research lags behind engineering applications. In this paper, the risk of mountain tunnel collapse is used as an example to illustrate a new assessment method based on case-based reasoning, advanced geological prediction, and rough set theory. First, the risk surroundings and risk factors involved in tunnel collapse are integrated and summarized, and a risk assessment index system is established for tunnel collapse. At the same time, because the dynamic response parameters obtained by the advanced geological prediction usually indicate a typical geological structure, sensitive response parameters are introduced in the assessment index system. Advanced risk assessment can be performed for tunnel sections at a certain distance ahead of the tunnel face. Second, the major risk surroundings and the advanced geological prediction results are analyzed for the tunnel under assessment. Cases with similar attribute characteristics are selected via comparison with previous cases. Attribute reduction and calculation of weights are subsequently performed for the risk surroundings and risk factors of similar cases based on the attribute significance theory of rough sets. Finally, index screening and objective weights are applied in the fuzzy comprehensive assessment model. The results of this paper can be used to improve the theoretical level and reliability of risk assessment in tunnel safety and serve as a reference for tunnel construction.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it