Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent experimental pillar extraction project at a UG2 bord-and-pillar mine presented a unique opportunity to compile a new pillar database. Currently, the South African hard rock bord-and-pillar mines are designed using the Hedley and Grant formula with a modified K-value. This empirically derived formula was developed for uranium mines in the Elliot Lake district of Canada. The use of this formula for the design of pillars in South Africa is questionable. Very few pillar failures have nevertheless been observed and its current calibrations for the various reef types are possibly too conservative. A new UG2 pillar database of 66 pillars, of which seven are classified as failed, was compiled by the authors. This enabled a revised 'first-order' calibration of the K-value for the Hedley and Grant formula. The new estimated value for the UG2 is K = 75 MPa. This gives a pillar strength that is more conservative than the PlatMine formula. This work should nevertheless be considered as only a preliminary calibration as the database was small. Further work is also required to determine whether the exponents in the formula for the width and height parameters are appropriate for UG2 pillars.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".