Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mechanical characterization is important to the design and analysis of cemented paste backfill (CPB) structures. Unconfined compressive strength (UCS) tests have been widely used owing to their relative simplicity to characterize a material’s response to unconfined compressive loading. However, the UCS represents a single strength parameter and does not fully describe the material’s strength (or failure) envelope. In this study, we analyzed UCS tests with direct shear and uniaxial tensile strength tests conducted on the same CPB materials to provide mechanical characterization of CPB under a more complete range of loading conditions. The results demonstrate the Mohr–Coulomb failure envelope provides a consistent description of strengths arising from the three different test methods. Furthermore, a better estimate of the tensile strength is UCS/4, which is considerably higher than the conventional assumption that the tensile strength is equal to USC/10 or UCS/12. This has a significant impact on the assessed required strengths particularly for undercut designs using Mitchell’s sill mat analysis method and suggests that in future the conventional UCS tests should be complemented with direct tension and direct shear tests to improve underground designs using CPB.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".