Summary of foreign knowledge about the origin and development of EDZ in crystalline rocks - research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presented search summarizes findings of foreign research oriented on the origin and evolution of the excavation damaged zone in crystalline rocks with a particular focus on the essential results of experimental projects which were performed in Canada, Sweden, Finland, and Switzerland. The study is divided, excluding the introduction, into seven main chapters of the text, which gradually deal with: (1) definition of key terms, (2) overview of the main underground research laboratories in the world where EDZ assessment was conducted, (3) methods suitable for EDZ description and characterization, (4) main factors influencing the origin of failure around the excavations and time-dependent evolution of EDZ. An overview of important outcomes of EDZ experiments, focusing on the European hard rock laboratories (Stripa, Äspö, Onkalo/Olkiluoto and Grimsel), and their summary are presented in the final two chapters.\nThe review summarizing the published key findings and results of in situ experiments shows, that for rock in lower stress state, i.e. in no spalling environment, the extent and character of rock mass damage is typically dependent on the excavation method. Using mechanical excavation, rock damage zone with thickness less than 3 centimeters can be originated. The microcracks within this zone contribute to the increase of hydraulic conductivity of the rock mass. At some test sites (Äspö, Grimsel), where the tunnel boring machine technology was used, the damage zone was already detected in depth of less than 5 mm.\nOn the contrary, openings excavated by drilling and blasting are characterized by much more extensive damage zones up to several tens of centimeters in width. The damage progressively diminishes with the distance from the opening.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".