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 OpenAlex
Yuanyuan Pu, Derek B. Apel, Bob Lingga

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.

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.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.259
Threshold uncertainty score0.428

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.030
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