Assessing longwall support-roof interaction from shield leg pressure data
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A concept has been developed where characteristic load cycles of longwall shields can describe most of the interaction between a longwall support and the roof. A characteristic load cycle is the change in support pressure with time from setting the support against the roof to the next release and movement of the support. The concept has been validated through the back-analysis of more than 500 000 individual load cycles in five longwall panels at four mines and seven geotechnical domains. The validation process depended upon the development of new software capable of both handling the large quantity of data emanating from a modern longwall and accurately delineating load cycles. Existing software was found not to be capable of delineating load cycles to a sufficient accuracy. Load-cycle analysis can now be used quantitatively to assess the adequacy of support capacity and the appropriateness of set pressure for the conditions under which a longwall is being operated. When linked to a description of geotechnical conditions, this has allowed the development of a database for support selection for greenfield sites. For existing sites, the load-cycle characteristic concept allows for a diagnosis of strata-support problem areas, enabling changes to be made to set pressure and mining strategies to manage better, or avoid, strata control problems. With further development of the software, there is the prospect of developing a system that is able to respond to changes in strata-support interaction in real time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it