Bibliographic record
Abstract
When conducting a backfill test campaign based on the selected mining method, there are various types of tests that are usually conducted to understand the in-situ behaviour of the material when placed underground. The unconfined compressive strength (UCS) and modulus of elasticity are the two most commonly measured parameters when dealing with a cemented paste fill material. However, when dealing with complex ore bodies or extraction techniques, additional testing, including triaxial and consolidation can be required to better understand the material’s behaviour when exposed to a sustained ground load. This is of particular interest in yielding or closing ground conditions. The modulus of elasticity results, measured by conducting a UCS test, provides information on the strength of the material and the ability to resist deformation under load when the fill is exposed vertically and horizontally. However, when dealing with long term stability and support, it is important to understand the stiffness of the material and how it will resist deformation when exposed to different loading conditions when confined. This paper will present selected triaxial and consolidation test data for a range of material blends, considerations that defined the testing program, and the nature of the tests performed. Conclusions will be presented as to the significance of the selected testing methodologies on the results obtained and their applications for industry.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.011 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".