Pseudo-prospective and prospective rock failure along with rockburst prediction based on acoustic emission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rock burst is a serious threat to mine safety production, and its prediction is of great significance to effectively prevent and control the dynamic disaster of rock burst. Therefore, this paper used AE data of rock loading process to conduct pseudo-prospective prediction and short-term and long-term prospective prediction of rock failure, and further explore the prediction of rock burst based on acoustic emission (AE) and its reliability. The results show that: by selecting the appropriate critical point of failure, the autoregressive integrated moving average model can make short-term predictions of rock failure. The prediction accuracy of the acoustic emission positioning technology for the fracture surface and fracture location of rocks is affected by the prediction time. The closer to the failure point, the higher the prediction accuracy is. The energy prediction method based on the energy accumulation mechanism can effectively predict the elastic energy at the moment of failure. This study also proposes combining machine learning with the analysis of historical acoustic emission data from rockbursts , which can improve the reliability of rockburst prediction. The research results can provide theoretical support for the prevention and control of rock burst dynamic disasters. • The ARIMA model can make pseudo-prospective and short-term prospective predictions of rocks to predict the failure time of rocks. • The ARIMA model can predict rock failure in the short term. • Based on AE location data, rock fracture surface and fracture mode are predicted. • The rock energy model based on energy accumulation can accurately predict the changes in the elastic energy of rocks
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".