MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2377598191

A DISCUSSION ON CLASSIFICATION OF MINING-INDUCED SEISMICITY

2006· article· en· W2377598191 on OpenAlexaff
Ming Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeoscience and Mining Technology
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInduced seismicityRock mass classificationSeismologyTectonicsGeologyStress fieldField (mathematics)Mining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringMathematics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Currently,the different methods for classification of mining-induced seismicity have no relation with each other.In order to be convenient for prediction,prevention and control of the mining-induced seismicity,based on the latest research results on the mechanism of the disasters,the classification of mining-induced seismicity is presented in this paper,following the principles of benefiting disaster prevention and control and non-conflicting to practices adopted both at home and abroad.The concept,principle and advantages of the hiberarchy classification of the mining-induced seismicity are given.5 classes and 16 types of mining-induced seismic events are classified based on the influence of in-situ tectonic stress field,physical and mechanical properties of rocks,rock mass structures,correlation between seismicity and mining activity,source of mining-induced stress change,and the locations of seismic sources and rock mass failure.The importance of regional tectonic stress field and stress change due to mining is emphasized in the mining-induced seismicity classification,research,and control.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese journal of rock mechanics and engineeringSame topicGeoscience and Mining TechnologyFrench-language works237,207