MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883292047 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/711_25

The Weakest Link - Ground Support Observations at Some Canadian Shield Hard Rock Mines

2007· article· en· W2883292047 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep mining · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShotcreteStopingUnderground mining (soft rock)Rock mass classificationStiffnessRebarGeotechnical engineeringShieldMining engineeringGeologyStructural engineeringEngineeringCoal mining

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The design of ground support systems is complicated by the fact that a weak link in the system can cause premature failure. Pull tests and/or dynamic test results may not be representative of how the tendon/plate/retainment system interacts with the rock mass. For example it is relatively common to see rockburst damage where the rock has shattered around the tendons, with only superficial damage to the tendons themselves. The ability of the retainment system to transfer load to the tendon elements may be critical to the ultimate success of the system, especially in bursting ground. Variable stiffness of different components can also lead to premature failure of one element prior to utilising the full capacity of another. Underground observations for both static and dynamic loading are used to discuss potential improvements and limitations of commonly used support elements (friction bolts, resin rebar, mechanically anchored rockbolts, cablebolts, weld mesh screen, plates, shotcrete). The observations are predominantly from Xstrata’s Craig Mine in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, with some examples from other Xstrata Canadian operations. The minimum support standards at the various mines are more than adequate for most conditions. However the exceptions (where something fails) often provide more insight and the observations are focused on these cases. The mining methods are a mix of post pillar cut and fill and blasthole open stoping, utilising trackless development where tunnel size is 5 x 5 m or larger. For “static” or pseudo static loading many of the observations come from cut and fill mining where breasting through the previous cuts’ back offers an opportunity to see a cross section of both the stress induced fracturing and the previous cuts’ back support. The mines are all hard rock Canadian Shield operations where the horizontal stress is approximately double the vertical (vertical stress being predominantly due to the weight of overburden). Some rockburst damage is shown and a brief recap of some dynamic testing is given to illustrate that at least some of the support design issues can be simulated, even if the detailed response of a particular rockburst cannot be practically duplicated.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.799

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.187 · 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