MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097321720

ISRM 2003–Technology roadmap for rock mechanics, South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, 2003.

2014· article· en· W7097321720 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreepCompressive strengthBrittlenessCompression (physics)Compression test
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the results of a series of creep tests performed on a total of nine samples of Lac du Bonnet granite from the Underground Research Laboratory near Pinawa, Canada. Each of the nine samples were subjected to stresses in excess of 80 % of the average uniaxial compressive strength of the granite and were maintained at that level of constant loading for periods of time ranging between a few minutes and several months. Acoustic emission was recorded in order to monitor the development and accumulation of brittle microfracture damage in the samples throughout the long-term loading. According to previously published theoretical predictions and field results, as well as similar experimental results of creep tests in granite, samples should fail when loaded to 70 % of their UCS for an extended period of time. Six of the samples did not fail when subjected to stresses in excess of 80 % of their UCS over periods of several months and were subsequently subjected to uniaxial compression to failure. The average strength of the samples that had previously been subjected to long-term loading were comparable to the average published strength of this rock. Three of the nine samples had increased end confinement and these three samples failed under

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.093
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0930.056

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207