Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Destressing, or preconditioning as it was initially called (hereafter destressing), was first introduced as a means of ameliorating rockburst conditions in the deep mines of South Africa in the 1950s (Roux, Leeman, & Denkhaus, 1957), in spite of the fact that the first use of destress blasting was in the 1930s in underground coal mining (Springhill Colliery, Nova Scotia, Canada, Saharan & Mitri, 2009). The principle on which destressing was based at that time was the reduction of rockburst occurrences or a decrease in their violence by increasing the depth of the fracture zone at the face of the underground opening. The argument for this was based on the concept that, if destressing is carried out ahead of an advancing underground opening, the depth of the fracturing would be advanced, and in so doing, the high-stress zone would be transferred farther away from the face into the solid rock mass. Moreover, if sudden failure should occur in the high-stress zone, only limited damage would result, because of the cushion effect of the destressed zone ahead of the face.In the beginning, however, despite these clear benefits, destressing was not generally accepted by mines as a suitable and safe prevention technique (Toper, Kabongo, Stewart, & Daehnke, 2000). After a period of investigations and research projects in South African gold mines in the 1980s and 1990s (Adams, Jager, & Roering, 1981, Adams, Gay, & Cross, 1993, Brummer & Rorke, 1988, Lightfoot, Goldbach, Kullmann, & Toper, 1996, Rorke, Cross, Van Antwerpen, & Noble, 1990, Toper, Grodner, Steward, & Lightfoot, 1997) destressing is now used as a standard rockburst measure across the many mining regions around the world (Konicek, Konecny, & Ptacek, 2011, Konicek, Saharan, & Mitri, 2011,\nMitri & Saharan, 2005).\n
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it