Classification of Rockburst in Underground Projects: Comparison of Ten Supervised Learning Methods
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
Rockburst prediction is of crucial importance to the design and construction of many underground projects. Insufficient knowledge, lack of characterizing information, and noisy data restrain rock mechanics engineers from achieving optimal prediction results. In this paper, a data set of 246 rockburst events was examined for rockburst classification using supervised learning (SL) methods. The data set was analyzed with 8 potentially relevant indicators. Eleven algorithms from 10 categories of SL algorithms were evaluated for their ability to learn rockburst, including linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), partial least-squares discriminant analysis (PLSDA), naïve Bayes (NB), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN), classification tree (CT), support vector machine (SVM), random forest (RF), and gradient-boosting machine (GBM). The data set was randomly split into two parts: training (70%) and test (30%). A 10-fold cross-validation (CV) method was applied during modeling, and an external testing set was employed to validate the prediction performance of the SL models. Two accuracy measures for multiclass problems were employed: classification rate and Cohen’s Kappa. The accuracy analysis, together with Cohen’s kappa and a nonparametric statistical test for the rockburst data set, revealed that the best models for the prediction of rockburst were GBM and RF when compared with other learning algorithms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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