MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970483735 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2018-0462

Runout estimates and risk-informed decision making for bench scale open pit slope failures

2019· article· en· W2970483735 on OpenAlexaffvenue
John Whittall

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsBGC Engineering (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)Geotechnical engineeringOpen-pit miningLandslideGeologyMining engineeringHazardEngineeringForensic engineeringEnvironmental scienceGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bench scale open pit slope failures are common occurrences in open pit mines and present a hazard to workers near freshly excavated faces. Objectively forecasting the zone of influence of bench scale failures is an important component of the mine’s risk management plan, as they occur more frequently than multi-bench scale landslides and can be more difficult to monitor. This paper presents a dataset of 167 bench scale open pit slope failures and tests runout and bench-width sizing methods to identify appropriate tools to estimate a stand-off distance from a fresh bench face. A length versus fall height and a Fahrböschung angle versus volume relationship calibrated to bench scale open pit slope failures provide reasonable runout estimates and are useful for decision-making when workers are near freshly excavated bench faces. Bench scale open pit failures appear to have a relatively constant fall height/horizontal runout distance (H/L) ratio up to 10 000 m 3 , after which H/L becomes inversely proportional to volume.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.588
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207