MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211025570 · doi:10.1201/9781003188339-31

Tunnel liner yield forecasting at Cigar Lake Mine: An input variable selection approach to understanding machine learning processes

2021· book-chapter· en· W4211025570 on OpenAlexaff
Josephine Morgenroth, Matthew A. Perras, Usman T. Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRock mass classificationYield (engineering)Convolutional neural networkVariable (mathematics)Artificial neural networkDisplacement (psychology)Selection (genetic algorithm)Mining engineeringArtificial intelligenceMultivariate statisticsMachine learningMomentum (technical analysis)Geotechnical engineeringComputer scienceGeologyAlgorithmEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is often time prohibitive for geotechnical professionals to examine large datasets to investigate complex rock mass phenomena in detail. Machine learning algorithms (MLAs) are gaining momentum for data processing in rock engineering, however research into their practical applications are just emerging. These multivariate rock mass datasets are ideal for developing MLAs to forecast rock mass behaviour. An Input Variable Selection (IVS) approach is presented for a Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) that predicts tunnel liner yield due to squeezing ground conditions at the Cigar Lake Mine. A IVS method called Input Omission (IO) is modified and applied to the CNN to enhance its performance. The IO method ranks the CNN inputs in terms of usefulness for forecasting the output. The IO findings for this CNN indicate that none of the available inputs may be omitted, and that the geotechnical zones and radial tunnel displacement inputs contain the strongest signals for forecasting the severity of tunnel liner yield at Cigar Lake Mine.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.143 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207