MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409528780 · doi:10.1016/j.rockmb.2025.100205

The phlogiston theory of rock mass classification: Philosophical and mathematical critique of ordinal data usage

2025· article· en· W4409528780 on OpenAlexaff
Junzhe Liu, Yu Feng, Yu‐Yong Jiao

Bibliographic record

VenueRock Mechanics Bulletin · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpistemologyOrdinal dataPhilosophyTheoretical physicsMathematical economicsMathematicsEconometricsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The widespread use of rock mass classification systems in engineering practice relies on mathematical operations and assumptions that violate fundamental principles of measurement theory. This paper presents a critical analysis of current classification methodologies, focusing on the Rock Mass Rating (RMR), Q-system, and Geological Strength Index (GSI), drawing parallels with historical scientific misconceptions such as the phlogiston theory. Through detailed examination of measurement theory principles and their application to geological characterization, we demonstrate that these classification systems contain inherent flaws in their treatment of ordinal data and parameter independence. The paper identifies four critical issues: the invalid summation of ordinal ratings in the RMR system, the inappropriate multiplication and division operations in the Q-system, the unjustified visual interpolation in the GSI system, and the universal problem of assumed parameter independence. Through examination of measurement theory principles and their application to geological characterization, we demonstrate that current classification systems violate basic mathematical rules in their treatment of ordinal data and parameter independence. The implications of these violations extend beyond theoretical concerns, affecting practical engineering decisions and risk assessment. We also illustrate how these theoretical flaws manifest in practice and propose directions for developing more theoretically sound approaches to rock mass characterization. This critical analysis aims to initiate a necessary dialogue about the future of rock mass classification in engineering practice. • Rock classification systems violate measurement theory principles by misusing ordinal data in mathematical operations. • Parameter independence assumptions contradict field evidence of significant interdependencies in rock masses. • Case studies show how theoretical flaws in classifications lead to inadequate designs and costly modifications. • This paper explains why current approaches create a false sense of precision in rock engineering practice.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.545

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRock Mechanics BulletinSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207