MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402665225 · doi:10.1016/j.compgeo.2024.106779

Probabilistic Approach for Q-based Ground Support Design

2024· article· en· W4402665225 on OpenAlexaff
R. A. Ziebarth, A. G. Corkum

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers and Geotechnics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studies
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbabilistic logicComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For tunnel, cavern, and shaft design, the inherent variability in a given rock mass domain makes accurately estimating rock mass quality and support requirements difficult. To capture the variability in rock mass properties when using the Q system, a methodology incorporating a statistical analysis of measured Q input parameters and Monte Carlo Simulation was developed to perform a probabilistic ground support design approach. Probability and cumulative density function curves were then developed using the mathematical program MATLAB to guide in estimating ground support based on all potential rock mass conditions. To illustrate the proposed approach, two hypothetical tunnels were designed based on real data from two previous projects. Finite Element Modelling was used to evaluate the suggested Q rock support performance in a range of rock conditions for one of the hypothetical excavations to validate the proposed approach. This method demonstrated that associating a range of potential ground conditions instead of a single deterministic value for each input parameter can provide a quantifiable measurement of uncertainty within a given rock mass domain. Additionally, the approach provides insight into the design criteria for ground support in underground excavations to potentially reduce overly conservative and costly recommendations.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.219 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers and GeotechnicsSame topicGraphite, nuclear technology, radiation studiesFrench-language works237,207