Improving the top coal recovery ratio in longwall top coal caving mining using drawing balance analysis
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
The recovery ratio of longwall top coal caving (LTCC) technology is an important measure of its effectiveness. However, the recovery ratio of single-opening sequential caving technology in thick and extra-thick coal seams needs improvement. To address this, an independent cluster-group caving technology is proposed in this study. Four numerical simulation experiments were conducted to compare the recovery ratio and drawing balance of four-opening independent cluster-group caving technology and single-opening sequential caving technology. Results show that the recovery ratio in four-opening independent cluster-group caving technology is approximately 6% higher than in single-opening sequential caving technology when the thickness of the broken gangue layer and the coal seam are the same. Additionally, a judgment formula for the broken immediate roof thickness is provided when the top coal recovery ratio is seriously affected. The independent cluster-group caving technology demonstrates stronger stability and better adaptability under different conditions, as its caving sequence can prevent larger thickness changes and gangue disturbances during the drawing process. Overall, this study highlights the potential of independent cluster-group caving technology to improve the recovery ratio of LTCC technology in thick and extra-thick coal seams.
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