MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3080499236 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2020-0168

Quasi-site-specific prediction for deformation modulus of rock mass

2020· article· en· W3080499236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jianye Ching, Kok‐Kwang Phoon, Yuan-Hsun Ho, Meng‐Chia Weng

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsRock mass classificationGeological Strength IndexRock mass ratingModulusGeologyGeotechnical engineeringDeformation (meteorology)Compressive strengthElastic modulusSimilarity (geometry)Materials scienceComposite materialComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A generic rock mass database consisting of nine parameters is compiled from 225 studies. The nine parameters are the deformation modulus, elastic modulus, dynamic modulus, rock quality designation, rock mass rating, Q-system, geological strength index of a rock mass, as well as intact-rock Young’s modulus and intact-rock uniaxial compressive strength. This generic database, labeled as ROCKMass/9/5876, consists of 5876 rock mass cases. The goal of this paper is to examine how an existing transformation model such as deformation modulus versus rock mass rating can be made more unbiased and more precise for a specific site by combining sparse site data with ROCKMass/9/5876 in a manner sensitive to site-specific differences. The outcome is a quasi-site-specific transformation model. Four methods are studied to construct a quasi-site-specific transformation model for the deformation modulus of a rock mass: probabilistic multiple regression (current state of practice), hybridization method, hierarchical Bayesian model, and similarity method. The results from two case studies in Turkey show that the hierarchical Bayesian model is the most effective.

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 score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.173 · 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

Citations52
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207