MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Seismic anisotropy in granite at the Underground Research Laboratory, Manitoba

2000· article· en· W2054367261 on OpenAlex
Gordon M. Holmes, Stuart Crampin, R. P. Young

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Prospecting · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicSeismic Imaging and Inversion Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKeele UniversityCANDU Owners Group
KeywordsGeologyAnisotropyShear (geology)LayeringShear wave splittingSeismic anisotropyShear wavesGeotechnical engineeringGeophysicsSeismologyMineralogyPetrologyOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Shear‐Wave Experiment at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's Underground Research Laboratory was probably the first controlled‐source shear‐wave survey in a mine environment. Taking place in conjunction with the excavation of the Mine‐by test tunnel at 420 m depth, the shear‐wave experiment was designed to measure the in situ anisotropy of the rockmass and to use shear waves to observe excavation effects using the greatest variety of raypath directions of any in situ shear‐wave survey to date. Inversion of the shear‐wave polarizations shows that the anisotropy of the in situ rockmass is consistent with hexagonal symmetry with an approximate fabric orientation of strike 023° and dip 35°. The in situ anisotropy is probably due to microcracks with orientations governed by the in situ stress field and to mineral alignment within the weak gneissic layering. However, there is no unique interpretation as to the cause of the in situ anisotropy as the fabric orientation agrees approximately with both the orientation expected from extensive‐dilatancy anisotropy and that of the gneissic layering. Eight raypaths with shear waves propagating wholly or almost wholly through granodiorite, rather than granite, do not show the expected shear‐wave splitting and indicate a lower in situ anisotropy, which may be due to the finer grain size and/or the absence of gneissic layering within the granodiorite. These results suggest that shear waves may be used to determine crack and mineral orientations and for remote monitoring of a rockmass. This has potential applications in mining and waste monitoring.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.240 · 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