Comparison of coalfields and coal-mining geological conditions of the main coal-producing countries in the world
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coalfields and coal-mining geological conditions of the main coalproducing countries in the world are illustrated and compared in some detail.The coal geological conditions in China,which is largely controlled by the plate tectonic evolution of Eastern Asia from Late Palaeozoic to present,are more complex than those of the United States,India,Australia,Germany,Canada,South Africa,as well as the Moscow outskirts coalfield in Russia and the Lublin coalfield in Poland.In our country,the coalfields suited to be open-cutting are such less that the underground mining will be the main coal-mining way in the coming years.According to the currently technological standard of coal mining,all coalfields in the Southern China and Yunnan-Xizang coal provinces do not have the basic geological conditions to build huge coal mine,and the most coalfields in the Northeastern,Northern and Northwestern coal provinces of China,except the Ordos coal basin,will face with the major challenge for building large-scale modern coal mine with high output,optimum beneficial result and safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".