MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319875090 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2022-0508

A decision approach on risk-control scheme recognition for karst excavation engineering

2023· article· en· W4319875090 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Song-Shun Lin, Annan Zhou, Shui‐Long Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical Engineering and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGuangdong Provincial Pearl River Talents ProgramShantou University
KeywordsExcavationScheme (mathematics)FlowchartEngineeringFuzzy logicCivil engineeringGeotechnical engineeringComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Risk events can be frequently encountered in karst geological environments during excavation construction; thus, a suitable risk-control scheme is essential to reduce the negative impact of accidents. A decision-making approach based on the fuzzy VIKOR method is proposed to identify the optimal risk-control scheme, where a triangular fuzzy set is adopted to express the experts’ judgements. A decision hierarchy is constructed based on four criteria and 12 sub-criteria, which are determined based on engineering experience and the construction environment. The developed approach was utilized to determine the optimal risk-control scheme to address risk events for excavation construction in karst regions. A countermeasure scheme, that is, pressure grouting with a two-phase liquid system, was implemented. The basic principles and steps of the implementation of the proposed scheme are presented. The applicability of the identified scheme was verified by the core recovery and modified number of blows using a standard penetration test. A flowchart of optimal scheme identification for geotechnical engineering practice is provided.

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)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.967

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.182 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations12
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical Engineering and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207