Evaluation on Coal Miner’s Emergency Response Capacity Based on the Catastrophe Theory and Triangular Fuzzy Number
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
The production environment of coal mine is complex and tough, so once dangerous situation appears it requires coal miners take accurate and effective emergency measures. Actually, the occurrence and further expansion of a large number of mining accidents are associated with coal miners’ mishandling of emergency. Therefore, evaluating coal miners’ emergency response capacity is the significant way to improve the coal miners' emergency response capacity level and pre-control coal mine accidents. Considering the drawbacks of traditional evaluation methods, this paper introduced the principle of catastrophe theory in evaluation, and proposed the evaluation model of coal miner’s emergency response capacity by introducing the triangular fuzzy number theory in order to reduce the uncertainties of underlying index grades made by experts. In this method, the importance and quantitative process of each assessing indices were determined by the intrinsic mechanism of the normalized formula in catastrophe model, thus the problems of estimating the assessing index weights were avoided and the effect of subjective factors was mitigated. Finally, the verification of evaluation was implemented on specific example, and the results show that this evaluation method is reasonable, feasible, exact, and stable.
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 | 0.015 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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.
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