The Rock Burst Hazard Evaluation Using Statistical Learning Approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The great threat and destructiveness brought by a rock burst make its prediction and prevention crucial in engineering. The rock burst hazard evaluation at project locations is an effective way of preventing rock burst since currently real‐time prediction is not available. Since different control factors and discrimination conditions of rock burst were accepted by conventional risk determination methods, the rock burst risk determination in the same area may produce conflicting results. In this study, Naive Bayes statistical learning models based on different model prior distributions representing highly complicated nonlinear relationship between rock burst hazard and impact factors were built to evaluate the rock burst hazards. The results suggested that the Bayes statistical learning model based on a Gaussian prior has the strongest performance over four preset prior distributions. Combining the rock mechanics parameters measured in the laboratory and the stress data collected on the project sites, the proposed model was successfully employed to evaluate the kimberlite rock burst risk of a diamond mine in Canada. The Bayes statistical learning model exhibits its robustness and generalization in rock burst hazard evaluation, which can be generalized for similar engineering cases with enough supported data.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".