Selection of ground support for mining drives based on the Q-System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of the Ground Support Systems Optimisation (GGSO) project undertaken by the Australian Centre for Geomechanics and collaborators, a comprehensive review of the current ground support design approaches implemented at mine sites throughout Australia and Canada was conducted. The review has shown that most mines rely primarily on the Grimstad and Barton (1993) chart to select their initial ground support patterns and standard ground support practices.<br/>There are a number of issues and limitations relating to the application to mining problems of this empirical technique, originally developed for civil engineering. These limitations are to a large degree attributable to the absence of mining case studies in the database and changes in ground support practices since the development of the original guidelines. As part of the GSSO research project a significant database of ground support practices used at mine sites has recently been developed. New empirical guidelines, mainly based on mining data collected from Australia and Canada, are proposed to be used at the feasibility stage, as a first pass design and for subsequent optimisation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".