MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909695320 · doi:10.1080/19475705.2018.1530305

Risk assessment of gas outburst in tunnels in non-coal formation based on the attribute mathematical theory

2019· article· en· W2909695320 on OpenAlexafffund
Kai Zhang, Wenbo Zheng, Cong Xu, Shougen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueGeomatics Natural Hazards and Risk · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeoscience and Mining Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsOperabilityAnalytic hierarchy processCoalEvaluation methodsCoal miningFuzzy logicEngineeringMining engineeringRisk analysis (engineering)Civil engineeringComputer scienceOperations researchReliability engineeringArtificial intelligenceWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gas outburst can result in great loss of life and property during tunnel construction. Gas outburst in tunnels in non-coal formation is often more harmful than that in coal-bearing formation. In order to take effective countermeasures to prevent the occurrence of gas outburst during tunnel construction, it is essential to assess the risk of gas outburst before tunnel construction. This paper attempts to establish an assessment system for evaluating the risk of gas outburst in tunnels in non-coal formation in the survey phase of tunnelling based on the attribute mathematical theory. Based on the principle of relevance and operability, eight factors that influence the gas outburst in non-coal formation are selected as the attribute evaluation indices. Attribute measure functions are constructed to calculate the single index attribute measures for evaluation indices. The fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process is used to determine weights of evaluation indices. A confidence criterion is applied to recognize the risk grade of the evaluation object. The proposed attribute evaluation system is applied to assess the gas outburst risk in a tunnel in the survey phase. The evaluation results show good agreement with the practical situation of gas, verifying the applicability of this attribute assessment system.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeomatics Natural Hazards and RiskSame topicGeoscience and Mining TechnologyFrench-language works237,207