Features of secondary stress field formation under anthropogenic change in subsoil during underground mineral mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports the studies of the secondary stress field induced by conventional and unconventional mining with nature-like technologies, including honeycomb and frame mine structures. The authors propose a new coefficient of influence for the quantitative assessment of the natural stress field distortion due to mineral mining. Using the data of mine tests, numerical modeling, physical simulation, and calibration of the developed numerical models, the diagrams of influence exerted by the parameters of a mining system on the structure of the secondary stress field are plotted. The highest effect on extension of tensile strain zones belongs to the systems of mining with caving. The weakest impact on enclosing rock mass is exercised by mining with backfilling as compared with the same or similar systems without backfill. The best index Tv = 1 is obtained in case of the new frame mine system recommended for thick and medium-thickness ore bodies in difficult geological conditions. For the honeycomb mine structure designed for extraction of rock salt and polyhalite, the resultant characteristics of the mine stability and mining impact on enclosing rock mass are also positive. The study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation, Project No. 19-17-00034.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".