Evaluation of fault-slip potential due to shearing of fault asperities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mining activities in underground mines could induce fault-slip that inflicts devastating damage to mine openings. Thus, enhancing current knowledge about fault-slip taking place in underground mines is of paramount importance. In this study, static and dynamic analyses are performed using mine-wide models encompassing a fault running parallel to a steeply dipping, tabular orebody. In the static analysis, modelled stopes within the orebody are extracted and backfilled in accordance with a sublevel stoping method. Dynamic analyses may be performed, depending on the stress states at the end of each mining stage during the static analysis, to simulate fault-slip induced by a stress drop resulting from asperity shear. Selected seismic source parameters of the simulated fault-slip are then computed for each mining stage. The relation between D/H (where D is distance between the fault and the orebody, and H is height of the mined-out ore) and seismic source parameters is examined. It is shown that seismic moment and radiated seismic energy correlate well with D/H, thus suggesting that this ratio could be used as an indicator of fault-slip potential. On the other hand, no noticeable correlation between the maximum slip rate during fault-slip and D/H could be ascertained.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".