The Importance of Cross-Correlation in Probabilistic Analyses of Rock Slopes Using Generalized Hoek-Brown Criterion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The generalized Hoek-Brown failure criterion is widely used in rock mechanics to predict the failure of rock masses. It was introduced to the industry in its entirety in 2002. With the help of this criterion, the difficult to obtain rock mass material constants mb, s, and a (herein termed the “derived parameters”) can be estimated with the use of the more easily obtained field parameters, GSI, mi, and D (herein termed the “primary parameters”). As a result, the primary parameters and the generalized Hoek-Brown criterion have gained wide acceptance in the industry. At the same time, probabilistic analysis has become more popular in recent years. This paper considers the probabilistic analysis of a rock slope. Two cases are considered: (1) the random variables are assigned to the primary parameters; and (2) the random variables are assigned to the equivalent derived parameters. It was found that converting from primary to derived parameters resulted in a very significant difference in results if the correlation of the derived parameters is not considered. The importance of considering cross-correlation coefficients when performing a probabilistic analysis with derived parameters is highlighted.
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".