MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415354569 · doi:10.1139/cgj-2025-0271

Clustering analysis and recognition of acoustic emission signals as failure precursors in coal samples

2025· article· en· W4415354569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Menghao Zheng, Sheng Xue, Quangui Li, Qingyi Tu, Jiwei Yue

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Geotechnical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoalAcoustic emissionSupport vector machineCluster analysisAmplitudeCoal miningIdentification (biology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Real-time monitoring and precursor identification of coal failure are crucial for providing early warnings of coal and rock dynamic disasters in coal mines. In this study, the acoustic emission (AE) response characteristics and crack evolution of coal failure precursors were analyzed under laboratory conditions. The AE signals of coal failure were classified using a two-step clustering method. Precursory AE signals were extracted and analyzed, followed by their identification using a support vector machine (SVM) algorithm. The results showed that Type V AE signals first appeared near the peak stress and exhibited distinctive features: low amplitude (hundreds of mV), long duration (hundreds of thousands of μs), large counts (tens of thousands), and high energy (tens of thousands of mV * ms). Type V AE signals were selected as the precursory signals of coal failure. An SVM model was subsequently trained to learn and identify these signals, achieving an average precision of 95.83%. The times when the SVM model first recognized the failure precursor AE signals of coal samples 1 and 2 were 19.442 s and 11.5686 s earlier than their peak failure times, respectively. The research results provide a valuable reference for using AE to identify coal failure precursors.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.683
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Geotechnical JournalSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207