Determining the Layout Parameters of the Gas Drainage Roadway: A Study for Sima Coalmine China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To determine the layout parameters of the gas drainage roadway (GDR) serving for the working face, an analytical calculation method of fracture zone and the modelling experiment were adopted, and the overburden fissure induced by mining and the height of fracture zone were analyzed. For the research on the distribution of fracture zone by analytical calculation method, the multiple factors influencing the failure mode of strata and the height of fracture zone were considered. The #1207 working face in Sima mine was taken as an engineering background, and the layout parameters of GDR were given by analyzing the height of fracture zone. Combining the results obtained by analytical calculation and scale modelling experiment, the suggested height of GDR was 10.7–32.8 m away from the coal seam roof, and the projection distance of GDR in the horizontal was within the range of 0–35 m from the airway. By monitoring the gas drainage effects in different heights away from coal seam roof in #1207 working face and in different horizontal distances away from the ventilation roadway in the #1211 working face, the results showed that the optimal height was 17.5–22 m away from coal roof, and the optimal horizontal distance was 17–21 m away from airway for GDR. The gas drainage effect of GDR indicated that the proposed parameters are scientific and reasonable.
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".