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 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".