MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023666161 · doi:10.1108/02644400410519811

Thin tunnel liners modelled with particle flow code

2004· article· en· W2023666161 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Computations · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeotechnical engineeringFracture (geology)Particle flowTension (geology)Flow (mathematics)Discrete element methodSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsMaterials scienceStructural engineeringGeologyEngineeringMechanicsComposite materialUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simple discrete element models using PFC 2D models with bonded assemblies of particles were used to numerically simulate direct tension and block punching tests on thin spray‐on tunnel liner materials to gain insight about the liner support mechanisms. PFC 2D input parameters were calibrated such that the rupture load and elongation at rupture were similar to the laboratory test data. The calibrated model of the liner material was then used to simulate a liner around a highly stressed tunnel in rock where stresses caused extensive fracturing near the top of the tunnel. The effect of the liner was analysed by modelling the tunnel with and without the liner and showed that the liner had minimal impact on fracture propagation in the rock because of the liner's highly deformable nature. However, the liner was able to retain the fractured rock in place.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.633
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.184 · 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