Quasi-site-specific prediction for deformation modulus of rock mass
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".