Hard-Rock Stability Analysis for Span Design in Entry-Type Excavations with Learning Classifiers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mining industry relies heavily on empirical analysis for design and prediction. An empirical design method, called the critical span graph, was developed specifically for rock stability analysis in entry-type excavations, based on an extensive case-history database of cut and fill mining in Canada. This empirical span design chart plots the critical span against rock mass rating for the observed case histories and has been accepted by many mining operations for the initial span design of cut and fill stopes. Different types of analysis have been used to classify the observed cases into stable, potentially unstable and unstable groups. The main purpose of this paper is to present a new method for defining rock stability areas of the critical span graph, which applies machine learning classifiers (support vector machine and extreme learning machine). The results show a reasonable correlation with previous guidelines. These machine learning methods are good tools for developing empirical methods, since they make no assumptions about the regression function. With this software, it is easy to add new field observations to a previous database, improving prediction output with the addition of data that consider the local conditions for each mine.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".