Applications of Information Theory in Rock Engineering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rock engineering relies heavily on empirical systems to identify significant parameters influencing rock mass behaviour. The empirical and inductive nature of rock engineering design is such that it is not possible to eliminate uncertainty. One way of managing uncertainty during the design process is by collecting good quality data in a standardized and objective manner. However, difficulties arise when defining and determining what constitutes good quality data. We believe that information theory and the concept of Shannon’s entropy could be effectively used to better audit rock engineering data. This paper builds on established concepts by expanding and refining the application of information theory to rock mass classification systems, specifically the rock mass rating and the Q-system. One of the objectives is to provide and showcase a method whereby information auditing is used to flag uncertain (or poor quality) data. In the future it is not difficult to envision data collection processes that include improved core logging and data processing where imaging technologies are coupled with machine learning processing capability. Such an approach requires more quantitative and objective rock mass descriptions; in this context it easy to appreciate the role that information theory might have in the future in rock engineering.
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 | 0.012 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".