MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2361314058

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

2014· article· en· W2361314058 on OpenAlexaff
Qian Qi

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations46
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRock and Soil MechanicsSame topicGeoscience and Mining TechnologyFrench-language works237,207