MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047004027 · doi:10.3390/app10155311

Comprehensive Study of Strata Movement Behavior in Mining a Longwall Top Coal Caving Panel of a Composite Coal Seam with Partings

2020· article· en· W3047004027 on OpenAlexaff
Hongtao Liu, Linfeng Guo, Guang-ming Cao, Xidong Zhao, Pengfei Wang, Tianhong Huo, Gang Yang, Cheng Hao, Qiang Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsOverburdenLongwall miningGeologyMining engineeringCoalCoal miningExtraction (chemistry)Geotechnical engineeringPetroleum engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strata movement due to extraction of a longwall panel is of great significance both in terms of environment and ground control. Thick coal seam extraction is expected to severely disturb the overburden, which is critical. Most studies use only one or two methods to investigate strata movement that are not thorough or comprehensive. This paper presents a detailed comprehensive case study of strata movement in extraction of a longwall top coal caving panel of a composite coal seam with partings in the Baozigou Coal Mine. The caved zone and fractured zone development were captured through physical modeling by incorporating the digital image correlation method (DICM), universal distinct element code (UDEC) numerical modeling, and field observation with the method of high-pressure water injection. The result of the physical modeling is 90 m. The numerical modeling result is 84 m. Field data show that the fractured zone is 81 m. Therefore, it demonstrates that the results from different methods are consistent, which indicates that the results from this comprehensive study are reliable and scientific.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied SciencesSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207