MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292607054 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2205_77

Abutment loading in deep cave mines: towards understanding susceptibility to strainbursts

2022· article· en· W4292607054 on OpenAlexaff
Justin Roy, Avesiena Primadiansyah, Erik Eberhardt, Rob Bewick

Bibliographic record

VenueCaving 2022: Fifth International Conference on Block and Sublevel Caving · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsGolder Associates (Canada)University of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMining engineeringCaveCopper mineAbutmentHazardGeologyEngineeringCivil engineeringArchaeologyCopperHistoryMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep cave mining is an inevitable requirement to meet the growing global demand for valuable minerals such as copper and gold. The experiences from historical and current deep mining suggest that the rock masses encountered at depth are more likely to be stronger, more brittle, and less jointed. While this may be a favourable condition for some mining and civil projects, under the high abutment loading associated with cave mining, the rock surrounding the mine drifts is susceptible to strainbursting, a sudden and high-energy failure mode. Loading conditions in cave mines can evolve rapidly over the course of mining, which can cause shifts in the susceptibility and triggers for strainbursting. Historical perspective on the strainbursting hazard in deep mining is presented in this paper, as well as a recent case study of the DMLZ mine where data-driven assessments have been applied to better understand the strainbursting hazard under the abutment loading condition. The strainbursting phenomenon can be difficult to manage in a complex cave mining environment. Therefore, tools and strategies for analysis of the occurrence of strainbursting that can be used to better constrain and manage the problem are discussed.

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)0.001
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.208
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.203 · 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
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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCaving 2022: Fifth International Conference on Block and Sublevel CavingSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207