MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242504404 · doi:10.46873/2300-3960.1134

Rockburst prediction in kimberlite using decision tree with incomplete data

2021· article· en· W4242504404 on OpenAlexaff
Yuanyuan Pu, Derek B. Apel, Bob Lingga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Mining · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision treeKimberliteDecision tree learningTree (set theory)DiamondComputer scienceStatisticsEngineeringGeologyForensic engineeringData miningMathematicsGeochemistryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rockburst is a common engineering geological hazard. In order to predict rockburst potential in kimberlite atan underground diamond mine, a decision tree method was employed. Based on two fundamental premises ofrockburst occurrence,σσσW,,,θct ETare determined as indicators of rockburst, which are also partition at-tributes of the decision tree. 132 training samples (with 24 incomplete samples) were obtained from realrockburst cases from all over the world to build the decision tree. The decision tree based on 108 completesamples was built with an accuracy of 73% for 15 validation samples while another decision tree based on 132samples (with 24 groups of incomplete data) shows an accuracy of 93% for validation samples. Hence, thesecond decision tree was employed for kimberlite burst prediction. 12 samples from lab tests and a numericalmodel were used as test samples. The results indicate a moderate burst liability which matches real situations atthe diamond mind in question.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable MiningSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207