MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1888939621 · doi:10.3968/6209

The Influence Factors Analysis of Abrasiveness Based on the Grey Theory

2014· article· en· W1888939621 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chi Ai, XU Haisu, Fuping Feng, XU Heqiang, Yang De-wei, Zhang Bowen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in petroleum exploration and development · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorrelationDegree (music)StatisticsMathematicsPsychologyPhysicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aimed at the phenomenon of many factors affecting rock abrasiveness, classification is not clear, and the influences of each factor on abrasiveness have different increase or decrease, different weights, and the influence mechanism are also different, in addition there may be a mutual influence between various factors, this paper takes into account the mutual influence between various factors and the weight of influence on abrasiveness, found out the main influence of abrasiveness by correlation analysis and grey correlation degree, so that guide the field better work by the main influence. Key words: Rock abrasiveness; Main influence; Correlation analysis; Grey correlation degree

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 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 score0.454
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in petroleum exploration and developmentSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207