An Overview of Opportunities for Machine Learning Methods in Underground Rock Engineering Design
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning methods for data processing are gaining momentum in many geoscience industries. This includes the mining industry, where machine learning is primarily being applied to autonomously driven vehicles such as haul trucks, and ore body and resource delineation. However, the development of machine learning applications in rock engineering literature is relatively recent, despite being widely used and generally accepted for decades in other risk assessment-type design areas, such as flood forecasting. Operating mines and underground infrastructure projects collect more instrumentation data than ever before, however, only a small fraction of the useful information is typically extracted for rock engineering design, and there is often insufficient time to investigate complex rock mass phenomena in detail. This paper presents a summary of current practice in rock engineering design, as well as a review of literature and methods at the intersection of machine learning and rock engineering. It identifies gaps, such as standards for architecture, input selection and performance metrics, and areas for future work. These gaps present an opportunity to define a framework for integrating machine learning into conventional rock engineering design methodologies to make them more rigorous and reliable in predicting probable underlying physical mechanics and phenomenon.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it