The performance of Brunswick Mine's rockburst support system during a severe seismic episode
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At Brunswick Mine, an increase in the number of seismicallyrelated falls of ground and in particular rockbursts occurred during 1999. This was due to the ever-increasing stress levels in the remaining ore reserves, mining in difficult highly stressed areas and in particular troublesome geological features. In conjunction with the Noranda Technology Centre, development of rockburst support systems started at the Brunswick Mine in 1996 and efforts were accelerated in 1999. A support package consisting of #6 gauge chain link mesh, #0 gauge heavy mesh straps, and a 1 m by 1 m pattern of modified conebolts was developed. The conebolts were modified to enable mixing of the resin anchoring. Two major rockbursts occurred during an intense seismic episode at the Brunswick Mine from October 13th to 17th , 2000. The area was evacuated approximately four hours before the first burst hit, and remained closed during the seismic i?½flurryi?½i?½. The first damaging activity occurred around midnight on Friday the 13th, and a second damaging episode occurred on the 17th that included a local Richter Magnitude 2.7 event. The second rockburst had dimensions of approximately 5 m by 5 m by 20 m or 2150 tonnes of massive sulphide material (density 4300 kg/m3). The first failure area was more extensive, caving approximately six metres of an intersection back with the lateral extent not safely measurable. This paper briefly descriptionbes the mining conditions that led to the bursting, the seismic response of the region, the mechanisms thought to have caused the bursts, and a yielding support system which had been partially installed before the burst.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".