MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626770471

A versatile model for the evaluation of subsidence hazards above underground extractions

2016· article· en· W2626770471 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

Venue3rd International Symposium on Mine Safety Science and Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Mining Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoal miningMining engineeringSubsidenceExtraction (chemistry)Groundwater-related subsidenceHydrogeologyUnderground mining (soft rock)Environmental scienceGround subsidenceGeologyCoalPipeline transportPetroleum engineeringCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringWaste managementStructural basin
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All underground extraction – oil, gas, water and minerals – results in subsidence of the surface to some degree.  Subsidence can cause damage to infrastructure – roads, powerlines, gas and oil pipelines, buildings – and to the natural surface, with the development of cracking, potholes, changes in hydrogeology and destabilization of slopes.  Pre-extraction estimates of the amount of subsidence and the hazards it might produce are difficult to determine with accuracy, and the most frequent approach is to model the surface movements in response to extraction using empirically based models. There are a number of large underground coal mine projects on the drawing board in British Columbia and Alberta despite the current prolonged episode of reduced coal prices. Fortunately, almost all of these projects target metallurgical coal, for which windmills, hydro and nuclear “clean” power sources provide no substitute and in fact, on which they depend for their construction. Each of these projects will have to demonstrate satisfactory mitigation of hazards arising from potential subsidence before they will be allowed to proceed. DMT Geosciences Ltd of Calgary, AB has recently worked with an underground mine proponent to model subsidence over an entire mine layout, in native coordinates and for multiple seam extraction, using a proprietary influence function model. Currently calibrated using a best estimate of western coal subsidence characteristics, the model itself will undergo additional calibration as monitoring data above the actual mine is obtained. The model itself is fairly easy to use, quick to run and provides results in an easily managed format for graphical display. As well as mining subsidence, it has in the past been shown to predict surface movements due to oil and water extraction at depth. For the current project. the results obtained in the initial subsidence prediction phase have allowed areas of potentially hazardous or damaging surface movements to be determined.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · 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