Comparison and evaluation of overcoring and hydraulic fracturing stress measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The stress measurements determined by both the overcoring (OC) and hydraulic fracturing (HF) methods in the Shuichang iron mine and Sanshandao gold mine were compared and evaluated, respectively. The results indicate that the independent OC and HF data in the two mines reveal the same dominant faulting stress regime. The σ H orientations derived from the OC and HF methods in the Shuichang iron mine are dominantly oriented in the N81.1°W–N89.4°W and N77.0°E–N88.0°E, respectively, and the σ H orientations yielded from the OC and HF techniques in the Sanshandao gold mine are predominantly in the N30°W–N90°W and N55.5°W–N60.4°W, respectively; hence, the σ H orientations obtained by the two different methods in the two mines are comparatively similar. In addition, the shapes of the probability density diagrams using an improved Bayesian regression approach of the three principal stresses measured by the OC and HF methods in the same mine are quite similar, and all the obtained Kolmogorov–Smirnov test p -values are larger than the selected significance level of 0.01, indicating that the stress data interpreted by the two methods approximately follow the same distribution law. Thus, the performance of the two techniques and the reliability of the measured data are satisfactory.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".