Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tensile strength is a crucial parameter involved in the design and analysis of cemented paste backfill (CPB). The ability of CPB to withstand tensile forces is essential for the stability of the backfilled stopes, particularly in areas with high stress or deformation. The tensile strength is a critical design parameter used in sill mats to perform underhand cut-and-fill operations. This study presents a novel technique that utilizes rectangular dog-bone specimens and compression to tensile load converters to perform the direct determination of tensile strength. This study indicates that the prevailing assumption regarding the ratio of unconfined compressive strength (UCS) to tensile strength (i.e., 10:1 or 12:1) underestimates the strength. The results suggest a ratio closer to 3:1 or 4:1. The findings indicate that the ratio varies with the curing interval. Specifically, the tensile-to-compressive strength ratios were higher in early-age specimens, as tensile strength values do not increase at the same rate as those of compressive strength. This disparity has notable implications, as underestimating tensile strength via traditional UCS-to-tensile strength ratios could potentially inflate binder consumption. Our study underscores the importance of using direct tensile strength measurements to optimize mining operations.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".