Examining Rock Engineering Knowledge through a Philosophical Lens
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents a philosophical examination of classical rock engineering problems as the basis to move from traditional knowledge to radical (innovative) knowledge. While this paper may appear abstract to engineers and geoscientists more accustomed to case studies and practical design methods, the aim is to demonstrate how the analysis of what constitutes engineering knowledge (what rock engineers know and how they know it) should always precede the integration of new technologies into empirical disciplines such as rock engineering. We propose a new conceptual model of engineering knowledge that combines experience (practical knowledge) and a priori knowledge (knowledge that is not based on experience). Our arguments are not a critique of actual engineering systems, but rather a critique of the (subjective) reasons that are invoked when using those systems, or to defend conclusions achieved using those systems. Our analysis identifies that rock engineering knowledge is shaped by cognitive biases, which over the years have created a sort of dogmatic barrier to innovation. It therefore becomes vital to initiate a discussion on the subject of engineering knowledge that can explain the challenges we face in rock engineering design at a time when digitalisation includes the introduction of machine algorithms that are supposed to learn from conditions of limited information.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it