Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter is a continuation of the seismic stability analysis suggested by Mendecki (1993; Real time quantitative seismology in mines: Keynote Address. In R. P. Young (Ed.), Proceedings 3rd International Symposium on Rockbursts and Seismicity in Mines, Kingston, Ontario, Canada (pp. 287–295). Balkema, Rotterdam.). The assumption here is that an inhomogeneous rock mass subjected to loading displays certain seismic symptoms when approaching instability. (1) An overall softening, measured by a decrease in the average value of the apparent stress. (2) Increased rate or accelerating deformation, measured by an increase in the activity rate and/or apparent volume. (3) An associated increase in correlation length where one would expect to observe an increase in the spatial distribution of seismic activity, measured, for example, by seismic diffusivity. (4) A decrease in the dimensionality, or localisation, of seismic activity as can be measured by the shape factor. The objective of seismic stability analysis is not to predict instability or to manage seismic exposure in the short term, but to guide control measures to mitigate seismic hazard.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.006 |
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".