MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2535303360 · doi:10.17559/tv-20160815152017

Analysis of fractal characteristic of fragments from rock burst tests under different loading rates

2016· article· en· W2535303360 on OpenAlexaff
Baozhu Tian, Shanjun Liu, Yanbo Zhang, Zhan-le Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueTehnicki vjesnik - Technical Gazette · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFractalGeologyMathematicsMineralogyGeotechnical engineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Original scientific paperRock burst is a common serious geological hazard in underground engineering, which seriously affects the progress of projects.The mechanism of rock burst can be explained by the distribution law of rock fragments and its fractal characteristics.A simulation experiment of rock burst was conducted with the granite samples under a biaxial loading machine system to analyze the fractal characteristics of the fragments from rock burst tests.The granite fragments were collected and divided into coarse, medium, fine, and micro grains by a screening method.The number and mass distribution of the fragments in different size ranges were also analyzed.The fractal dimensions of the rock fragments were calculated by the mass-granularity distribution method.Results show that the loading rate is proportional to the damage degree of rock burst; the mass of rock burst debris increases with the increase in loading rate, which indicates that a high loading rate leads to considerable rock damage.A high loading rate also results in small proportions of fine and medium grains and a large proportion of coarse grain, with no significant change in the micro grain.Under the high-loading-rate condition, the fractal dimensions of rock fragments are small, but the released energy of rock burst is large.The conclusions obtained in this study confirm the feasibility of reducing the risk of rock burst by adjusting the excavation rate in engineering practice and provide the basis for further study on the mechanism of rock 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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTehnicki vjesnik - Technical GazetteSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207