MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220719672 · doi:10.3390/geotechnics2010012

A Review of Relationship between Texture Characteristic and Mechanical Properties of Rock

2022· review· en· W4220719672 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeotechnics · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of CanadaUniversité du Québec à Chicoutimi
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeomechanicsPetrophysicsTexture (cosmology)GeologyGeotechnical engineeringRock mass classificationGeological Strength IndexRock mechanicsWeatheringPorosityGeochemistryComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The textural characteristics of rocks influence their petrophysical and mechanical properties. Such parameters largely control rock mass stability. The ability to evaluate both immediate and long-term rock behaviors based on the interaction between various parameters of rock texture, petrophysical and mechanical properties is therefore crucial to many geoengineering facilities. However, due to the common lack of high-quality core samples for geomechanics and rock texture laboratory tests, single and multivariable regression analyses are conducted between mechanical properties and textural characteristics based on experimental test data. This study presents a review of how rock texture characteristics influence the geomechanical properties of a rock, and summarizes the regression equations between two aspects. More specifically, a review of the available literature on the effects of mineralogy, grain size, grain shape, packing density, foliation index, porosity, degree of weathering, and other rock physical characteristics on geomechanics is presented. Similarly, a review of the literature discussing the failure criteria of anisotropic rocks, both continuous and discontinuous, is also presented. These reviews are accompanied by a comparison of the fundamentals of these methods, describing their equations and discussing their advantages and disadvantages. This exercise has the objective of providing better guidelines on how to use these criteria, allowing for safer underground excavations via an improved understanding of how rock texture parameters affects the mechanical behavior of rocks.

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.921

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.182 · 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