MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991593353 · doi:10.1139/t01-093

Traitement et analyse des paramètres de pilotage d'un tunnelier

2002· article· en· W1991593353 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alain Denis, F. Crémoux

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTunneling and Rock Mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTunnel boring machineGeotechnical engineeringThrustStatisticHomogeneousGeologyPenetration rateTunnel constructionEngineeringMathematicsStructural engineeringStatisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tunnel boring parameters are used to control the good-functioning of the tunnel boring machine along the bored tunnel route and rarely to obtain more information about the nature or the mechanical behavior of the bored soil. Actually, they can bring very informative data, firstly, to improve the geological section to have the exact tunnel length in each soil formation and, secondly, to quantify the variability of the boring process along the tunnel route. Previously, a mechanical parameter is obtained from the combination of three tunnel boring parameters, which are thrust, penetration rate, and rotary speed. From statistical and geostatistical methods, the drillability signal, which can be seen as a time series, is divided into a set of stationary subdomains. The resulting series is then a stationary one, by zones, whose analysis can bring more information about the tunnel length for each soil formation and on the variability of the boring process. This last piece of information might then be utilized by contractors to explain some low advance rate totally unexpected before boring.Key words: tunnel boring machine, boring parameters, drillability, homogeneous zone, variability, statistic, geostatistic.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.191 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicTunneling and Rock MechanicsFrench-language works237,207