Discrete Fracture Network (DFN) as an Effective Tool to Study the Scale Effects of Rock Quality Designation Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock quality designation (RQD) is a parameter that describes rock mass quality in terms of percentage recovery of core pieces greater than 10 cm. The RQD represents a basic element of several classification systems. This paper studies scale effects for RQD measurements using synthetic rock masses generated using discrete fracture network (DFN) models. RQD measurements are performed for rock masses with varying fracture intensities and by changing the orientation of the simulated boreholes to account for orientation bias. The objective is to demonstrate the existence of a representative elementary length (REL, 1D analogue of a 3D representative elementary volume, or REV) above which RQD measurements would represent an average indicator of rock mass quality. For the synthetic rock masses, RQD measurements were calculated using the relationship proposed by Priest and Hudson and compared to the simulated RQD measurements along the boreholes. DFN models generated for a room-and-pillar mine using mapped field data were then used as an initial validation, and the conclusion of the study was further validated using the RQD calculation results directly obtained from the depth data collected at an iron cap deposit. The relationship between rock mass scale and assumed threshold length used to calculate RQD is also studied.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".