Hardrock burst mechanisms and management strategies
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
Rockbursts occur as a direct consequence of underground mining or civil excavation. The general scale of their seismic disturbance and consequences depend upon known factors. However, uncertainty remains as to exactly when and where rockbursts will occur, as well as the effectiveness of ground support measures to fully mitigate their consequences. While the uncertainty in when and where is a dilemma shared with earthquake prediction, that associated with ground support capability is both a design and a management concern. Following a brief review of the known mechanisms that produce rockbursts, the paper explores the sources and scales of energy demands that characterize the risk of their damaging consequences upon underground excavations . We note that some of this risk continues to be associated with uncertainty with respect to rockmass properties and in situ stress, particularly in the context of deep mining. A review is presented of all available yielding ground support systems and their necessary design requirements, identifying practical weaknesses and limitations where these are known. The paper concludes with some suggested areas where further study and development could provide the ways and means to reduce the design uncertainty in managing rockbursts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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