Transmission of the topographic system and orientation from the surface to an underground mine using 2 vertical shafts. Comparison between the classical and gyroscope method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most difficult operation in the surveying filed in underground mining is the transmission of the coordinates and orientation from the surface to the underground drifts, especially when there is only a connection by vertical shafts.This process was studied by Chrzanowski and Robinson (1967) and widely used over time (Benecke and Kalz 2006).This study analyses different aspects related to a case study were this methodology was applied.A mine with 2 shafts of 700 meters depth.A part from the classic method the gyroscope method is also studied and compared both.1. Two plumbs method: This process needs a previous study in the surface to transmit the coordinates to the top of both shafts.The coordinates are projected throw the shafts and subsequently, a polygonal is done to connect both shafts.The projection surface-underground can be done by means of a cable and a plumb attached or with a laser.In the case study it was used the cable and plumb option due to the length of the shaft, among other technical conditions.2. Gyroscope method: It is a widely used system for the transmission of the orientation with high accuracy, being able to define absolute directions at any measurement point and eliminate systematic errors (Benecke and Kalz 2006).This method only needs one shaft.This study is focused in the on the advantages and disadvantages of using a plumbing method, with its variations, and a gyroscope, as well as the conditions of the mine that determine which system is more suitable in each case.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".