MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mining of orebodies under shear loading Part 1 – case histories

2011· article· en· W2147440542 on OpenAlexafffund
Fidelis T. Suorineni, Peter Kaiser, Juma Mgumbwa, Denis Thibodeau

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section A · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeologyShear (geology)Principal stressStress fieldEchelon formationShear stressMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringBrittlenessOblique caseExcavationSeismologyTectonicsPetrologyEngineeringMaterials scienceMetallurgyStructural engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conditions for rockbursts occurrence are traditionally identified as: high stress, high extraction ratio, strong brittle rocks, folding, faulting and unfavourable excavation geometry. Some rockbursts cannot be explained by any one or a combination of these factors. Salamon (1983) stated that a disconcerting feature of rockbursts is that they defy conventional explanation. Based on detailed review of case histories, this paper identifies oblique loading of orebodies by the major far field principal stress as a cause of rockbursts. Orebodies subjected to this loading condition are termed orebodies in shear. Orebodies in shear are subjected to compressive and shear loads. This paper shows it is risky to generalise that tabular orebodies have their axis perpendicular to the major far field principal stress. This study identifies characteristics of orebodies in shear and the consequences of not taking this loading mechanism into account in the planning, design and mining of such orebodies.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.628

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section ASame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207