Why the future of rock mass classification systems requires revisiting their empirical past
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite recent efforts, digitization in rock engineering still suffers from the difficulty in standardizing and statistically analysing databases that are created by a process of quantification of qualitative assessments. Indeed, neither digitization nor digitalization have to date been used to drive changes to the principles upon which, for example, the geotechnical data-collection process is founded, some of which have not changed in several decades. There is an empirical knowledge gap that cannot be bridged by the use of technology alone. In this context, this paper presents the results of what the authors call a rediscovery of rock mass classification systems, and a critical review of their definitions and limitations in helping engineers to integrate these methods and digital acquisition systems. This discussion has significant implications for the use of technology as a tool to directly determine rock mass classification ratings and for the application of machine learning to address rock engineering problems. Thematic collection: This article is part of the Digitization and Digitalization in engineering geology and hydrogeology collection available at: https://www.lyellcollection.org/cc/digitization-and-digitalization-in-engineering-geology-and-hydrogeology
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 | 0.110 | 0.113 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.059 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".