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
One can only know where a rock bridge is once one measures it. In addition, to measure it, you need the rock mass to fail. This critical problem is ignored by many, and engineers continue to refer to rock bridges as geometrical distances between non-persistent fractures. This paper argues that this rather simplistic approach can lead to non-realistic failure mechanisms. We also raise the critical question of whether the inappropriate functioning of strength equations centred on the measurement of rock bridge percentages could result in misinterpreting the risk of failure. We propose a new interpterion, aptly called the Bologna Interpretation, as an analogy to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics, to highlight the indeterministic nature of rock bridges and to honour the oldest university in Europe (Bologna University). The Bologna Interpretation does not negate the existence of rock bridges. What rock bridges look like, how many there are, and where they are, we do not know; we can assume their existence and account for their contribution to rock mass strength using a potential analogue.
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