Analysis of Occupational Accidents in Underground and Surface Mining in Spain Using Data Mining Techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An analysis of workplace accidents in the mining sector has been done using the database from the Spanish administration between the period 2005-2015 and applying data mining techniques. Data has been processed by means of the software Weka. Two scenarios were chosen regarding the accidents database, surface and underground mining. The most important variables involved in occupation accidents and their association rules have been determined. These rules are formed by several predictor variables that cause an accident, defining its characteristics and context. This study exposes the 20 most important association rules of the sector, either surface or underground mining, based on statistical confidence levels of each rule obtained by Weka. The outcomes display the most typical immediate causes with the percentage of accident basis of each association rule. The most typical immediate cause is body movement with physical effort or overexertion and type of accident is physical effort or overexertion. On the other hand, the second most important immediate cause and type of accident change in both scenarios. Data mining techniques have been proved as a very powerful tool to find out the root of the accidents, apply corrective measures and verify their effectiveness, either for public or private companies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".