MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402545924 · doi:10.36487/acg_repo/2465_04

Seismic response of large-scale to medium-scale geological structures in deep mines

2024· article· en· W4402545924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Véronique Falmagne, Chantale Doucet, D. Yergeau, Nicolas St-Onge, C C Durham, Roxanne Jacobs, Antti Pyy, Alfred Heller

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScale (ratio)GeologySeismologyMining engineeringCartographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful mining projects rely on three interconnected pillars: maintaining a safe working environment, achieving uninterrupted production at the required mining rate and ore grade, and managing costs effectively. A strong seismic response either during mine development or stope extraction constitutes a potential safety hazard and it can eventually affect the delivery of the mine plan. The anticipated rock mass behaviour around mine excavations depends on the effect of the in situ stress field on local rock mass conditions. Both are directly related to the geological and tectonic history of the deposit and regional environment. The geometry, strength and stiffness of large-scale structural features such as brittle faults, ductile shear zones and dykes have a direct and significant impact on the surrounding rock masses and local stress field. The Goldex and LaRonde mines in Canada, and the Kittilä mine in Finland, are deep underground seismically active mines in different geological settings. The seismic responses of medium to large-scale geological structures and dykes encountered at Goldex and select examples from LaRonde and Kittilä mines illustrate some of the lessons and ongoing work to assist in managing the seismic risk at these operations. The seismic response of large to medium-scale structures is challenging to anticipate and manage until actual mining has taken place and monitoring data is available. For instance, the seismic response associated with graphitic shears and jointing in the footwall at Rimpi, the milder-than-expected response of the diabase dykes and the stronger than expected response of the mylonitic ductile shears and brittle faults at Goldex were unforeseen. Even in a mature mine such as LaRonde, the understanding of the behaviour of the 700 Fault has taken some time to develop. The examples provided in this paper aim to demonstrate the benefits of integrating structural geology and improving the characterisation and modelling of the large to medium-scale structures from the earliest stages of a project. In mature mining camps, leveraging the geological and deformation history from regional geology and tectonic setting can help to anticipate potential alteration patterns and large-scale structural orientations and dykes. These structures should be included in early analyses and numerical modelling to guide the placement of mine infrastructure, strategic mine layout and mining sequence decisions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.268
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207