MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007989215 · doi:10.1504/ijram.2007.014094

Assessment of horizontal pillar burst in deep hard rock mines

2007· article· en· W2007989215 on OpenAlexaff
Hani S. Mitri

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and Management · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBrittlenessPillarRock burstRock mass classificationGeotechnical engineeringGeologyMining engineeringStress (linguistics)Materials scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper examines three methods for assessing the stability of horizontal pillars in deep underground hard rock mines. Such pillars could suffer from strain-type rockburst when they become too thin in an environment characterized by high in situ stress and hard, brittle rock. The methods presented are: potential stress failure (PSF), energy release rate (ERR) and the Burst Potential Index (BPI). It is shown through a numerical model of a characteristic crown pillar problem that the BPI is the most suitable of the three. Contrary to the PSF method, the BPI method accounts for the rock mass strength and deformability.

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)0.001
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 score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations30
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Risk Assessment and ManagementSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207