Investigating the Relationship between Geochemistry, Leeb Rebound Hardness, and Cerchar Abrasivity Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock hardness and abrasivity are among the most crucial properties that can significantly impact the interaction between rocks and mechanical tools in different parts of geoengineering projects. Accurate estimation of these properties is essential for a better understanding and optimization of geoengineering operations. Hence, the main aim of this study was to develop different machine learning (ML) models based on the geochemical measurements for predicting rock hardness and abrasivity. To do this, 159 rock samples were collected from a gold mine, and portable X-ray fluorescence spectrometry (pXRF), Leeb rebound hardness (LRH), and Cerchar abrasivity index (CAI) tests were performed on the collected rock samples. Three different ML algorithms, including random forest regressor (RFR), support vector regression, and gradient boosting regressor, were applied to develop predictive models for LRH and CAI separately. Considering the fact that the geochemical data are of the compositional type, two scenarios were followed: developing predictive models based on the original data obtained from the pXRF and the centered log-ratio (Clr) transformed data, resulting in the development of six predictive models for LRH and CAI. The performance assessment of the developed predictive models showed that RFR models outperformed the other two ML algorithms in predicting LRH and CAI. In addition, the developed models based on the original data demonstrated a better performance in both cases of LRH and CAI than the trained model based on Clr data. The result indicates that integrated pXRF measurements and RFR technique have strong potential to be used for practical and efficient rock materials characterization during exploration and extraction processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".