MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388287927 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3518828/v1

One equivalent mining height model for predicting the compression-consolidation-creep-diagenesis of compacted gangue backfill body——A case study on double wide-strip mining with gangue backfill

2023· preprint· en· W4388287927 on OpenAlexaff
Lei Xu, Siyu Wang, Davide Elmo, Shuxue Ding, Hengzhong Zhu, Wenfeng Li, Wen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTailings Management and Properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersHenan Polytechnic UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsRoofGangueGeologyGeotechnical engineeringConsolidation (business)Coal miningCreepDiagenesisGroundwater-related subsidenceCompression (physics)Mining engineeringCompressibilitySubsidenceEngineeringMineralogyCoalMaterials scienceStructural engineeringGeomorphologyMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Taking the double wide-strip mine gangue backfilling work face of 1101 and 1102 in the Tingnan Coal Mine as the background, this study utilizes theoretical analysis, numerical simulation, laboratory experiments, and engineering practices to investigate the complete process of compression-consolidation-creep-diagenesis of the compacted gangue backfill body, the equivalent mining height model, and the surface subsidence characteristics. The results: The maximum control roof distance in the gangue backfilling work face=Tip-to-face distance + Cutting depth + Roof beam length + Post-support gap. The advance subsidence amount of roof is equal to the maximum control roof distance multiplied by the sine value of the roof inclination angle. The height of available backfill space behind the support is equal to the mining height minus the roof advance subsidence, the unfilled height under roof, and the amount of floor heave behind the support. The compacted gangue body undergoes four stages of compression-consolidation-creep- diagenesis within the available filling height, with their respective compressibility rates as follows: skeleton adjustment stage (7.42%), slow compression stage (12.81%), consolidation settlement stage (13.15%), and creep diagenesis stage (25.53%). The equivalent mining heights corresponding to the four stages are 0.94m, 1.10m, 1.11m, and 1.48m, respectively. By comparing the predictions from probability integral method, numerical simulations, and subsidence observations, it is evident that the surface subsidence curves of the 1101 and 1102 working faces, along the strike main section, exhibit a "bowl" shape, with a gentle slope in the first two stages and a steep slope in the latter two stages. ht=Lmax×sinθ The subsidence curves of the 1101 and 1102 working faces, along the dip main section, show a "bowl" shape in the first two stages, and a "W" shape in the latter two stages.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.208
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.160 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicTailings Management and PropertiesFrench-language works237,207