Prediction of surface crown pillar stability using artificial neural networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A relatively novel technique, artificial neural networks (ANN), is used in predicting the stability of crown pillars left over large excavations. Data for the training and verification of the networks were obtained from the literature. Four artificial networks, based on two different architectures, were used. The networks used different numbers of input parameters to predict the stability or failure of crown pillars. Multi‐layer perceptron networks using mine type, dip of orebody, overburden thickness, pillar thickness, pillar length, stope height, backfill height, Rock Mass Rating (RMR) of the host rock and RMR of the orebody showed excellent performance in training and verification. Adding three more variables, namely pillar width, rock density and pillar thickness to width ratio, showed symptoms of over‐learning without degrading performance significantly. Radial basis function networks were capable of predicting crown pillar behaviour on the basis of few input functions. It was shown that mine type, dip and pillar thickness to width ratio can be used for a preliminary estimation of stability. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".