Practical recommendations for machine learning in underground rock engineering – On algorithm development, data balancing, and input variable selection
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
Abstract Research has demonstrated that machine learning algorithms (MLAs) are a powerful addition to the rock engineering toolbox, and yet they remain a largely untapped resource in engineering practice. The reluctance to adopt MLAs as part of standard practice is often attributed to the ‘opaque’ nature of the algorithms, the complexity in developing them, and the difficulty in determining how the algorithms use the datasets. This article presents tools and processes for developing MLAs, input selection, and data balancing for practical underground rock engineering. MLAs for classification and regression – two main machine learning applications – are presented in terms of developing MLA to extract information from the dataset to obtain the desired output. Engineering verification metrics are selected based on their suitability for specific output. Methods for input selection and data balancing are discussed with a focus on selecting appropriate input data for the problem without introducing bias or excess complexity. Each tool and process for algorithm development, data preparation, and input selection is illustrated with a case study. This article demonstrates that geotechnical practitioners can extract additional value by applying MLAs to rock engineering problems. Once an understanding of the functions of MLAs is reached, the building blocks and open‐source code are available to be adapted to suit the rock mass behaviour of interest.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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