MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The spatial and temporal assessment of clustered and time-dependent seismic responses to mining

2017· article· en· W2608219917 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep mining · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinerals and Energy Research Institute of Western AustraliaAustralian Centre for GeomechanicsBarrick Gold Corporation
KeywordsInduced seismicitySeismic hazardSeismologyGeologyRock mass classificationHazardEarthquake scenarioHazard analysisMagnitude (astronomy)Seismic riskMining engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phenomenon of seismicity is observed in many hard rock underground mines around the world. The potential for seismic events to damage underground excavations can create a significant hazard to mining personnel, equipment, and infrastructure. The management of seismic hazard is an essential component in minimising the political, social, and economic risks associated with mining. The effective management of seismic hazard is underpinned by a sufficient understanding of the magnitude, spatial, and temporal characteristics of seismicity. These characteristics of seismicity are controlled by causative seismic source mechanisms within a mine and are related to stress conditions, rock mass strength, excavations, geology, and geological features. This paper considers spatially clustered seismicity, which is generated by a timedependent rock mass failure process. Seismicity of this nature is routinely observed following blasting or large seismic events and is referred to as a ‘seismic response’ within this paper. There are numerous interrelated factors that can influence the characteristics of seismic responses and this makes it difficult to establish meaningful correlations with causative processes. Furthermore, the management of seismic response hazard has the tendency to rely on the sitespecific experience, which has inherent limitations. These areas of research can be partly addressed by the quantification of seismic responses that allows for the development of an objective understanding of seismic response hazard. This paper presents a general outline of a recently published methodology for the assessment of seismic responses that concurrently examines the spatial and temporal characteristics of these responses. A general discussion on the major considerations when applying the method is provided in this paper. The benefits of the quantification of seismic responses are illustrated by several case studies. These studies assess individual responses and consider the historical distribution of response characteristics for a mining environment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.389

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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