MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2361314058

Definition,mechanism,classification and quantitative forecast model for rockburst and pressure bump

2014· article· en· W2361314058 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRock and Soil Mechanics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeoscience and Mining Technology
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanism (biology)Mode (computer interface)Rock burstGeologyGeotechnical engineeringPillarFailure mode and effects analysisFailure mechanismDeformation (meteorology)Slip (aerodynamics)Computer simulationDeformation mechanismMining engineeringEngineeringStructural engineeringCoal miningCoalComputer scienceSimulationMaterials scienceComposite material
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a review paper, the discourses on the mechanism and the definition of rockburst of authoritative experts were quoted, based on these discourses and according to the different mechanisms of rockburst, rockbursts are divided into the sliding mode rockburst resulting from fault-slip events and strain mode rockburst resulting from the failure of the rock. Combined with the specific accident cases, the mechanism and characteristics of the two types of rockburst are analyzed. Finally, based on the analysis of the mechanism, the quantitative forecast and numerical simulation of rock(coal) pillar strain mode rockburst, enclosing rock strain mode rockburst and sliding mode rockburst are introduced, in which, the author's latest research of quantitative forecast and numerical simulation for strain mode rockburst after incompatible deformation by using non-Euclidean geometry model is included.

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 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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.436

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.189 · 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