Wet inrush susceptibility assessment at the Deep Ore Zone mine using a random forest machine learning model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In cave mines, wet inrushes occur when there is an uncontrolled inflow of fine, wet material from drawpoints. Currently, uncertainty exists regarding the spatial-temporal pattern and severity of inrush incidents. This uncertainty arises from the limited understanding of wet inrush mechanisms within the complex conditions of a cave mine. In this study, the existing gaps in knowledge around the spatial and temporal patterns of inrush incidents were addressed using machine learning techniques. A random forest (RF) model was employed to analyse the inrush database collected at the Deep Ore Zone mine over several years. The conceptual understanding of inrush mechanisms and triggers, along with historical evidence, was employed to establish an initial set of key inrush variables to be used in the RF model. The developed RF model demonstrated promising performance with an accuracy of 85%. The feature importance results indicated that previous inrush history, fragment size, draw rate (short term and long term), differential draw index (short term and long term) and history of inrush at neighbouring drawpoints had the highest impact on inrush susceptibility. The insights gained provide an improved assessment of inrush susceptibility, thereby improving the strategies employed to mitigate inrush risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".