MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Rock mass performance monitoring with topology preserving quantised vector spaces

2021· article· en· W3197786435 on OpenAlexaff
Dean L. Millar, J. P. Harrison

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicNeural Networks and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock mass classificationTopology (electrical circuits)Metric (unit)Computer scienceMathematicsGeologyEngineeringGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This work explains the development of a so-called rock mass system performance map, that provides a backdrop to assist in performance interpretation. The rock mass system performance maps presented in this paper are 2D graphical devices prepared using Sammon mappings, Learning Vector Quantisation, Self-Organising Topological Maps and combinations of these mathematical techniques. Using supervised or unsupervised learning methods, these algorithms project and partition high-dimensional vector spaces, of a dimension equal to the number of environmental and rock mass condition parameters considered, into 2D categories of rock mass condition. In providing 2D renderings, the techniques aim to preserve properties of the characterising vector space such as adjacency of states and topology. The condition of a rock mass can be ‘plotted’ on that map by identifying its k-nearest neighbours and interpreted relative to stability metric categories. Should the defining vector space include rock mass properties or environmental parameters that are repeatedly measured, or possibly continuously monitored, then the rock mass condition marker traces out a performance trajectory across the performance map. An example of rock mass performance map synthesis and use is presented.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicNeural Networks and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207