MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Estimating Probability of Instability of Haulage Drift with Respect to Mining Sequences

2013· article· en· W960732084 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wael Rashad Elrawy Abdellah, Hani S. Mitri, Denis Thibodeau, Lindsay Moreau-Verlaan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Civil Engineering and Architecture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsVale (Canada)McGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHaulageMining engineeringStability (learning theory)Surface miningMonte Carlo methodUnderground mining (soft rock)EngineeringGeologyComputer scienceCoal miningStatisticsMathematicsStructural engineeringMachine learningWaste management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Haulage drifts play a vital role in providing personnel and equipment access to ore extraction areas for mine production.Thus, their stability is of crucial importance during the life of a mine plan.Many Canadian mines use longhole mining methods or one of its variants.These methods require access to the orebody through haulage drifts on multiple levels.This paper examines the stability of mine haulage drifts with respect to planned mining sequence.A case study of an underground mine is presented.The case study examines #1 Shear East of the Garson Mine in Sudbury, Ontario.A two-dimensional, elastoplastic, finite difference model (FLAC 2D) is developed for a haulage drift situated 1.5 km below surface in the footwall of the orebody.The stability of the haulage drift is evaluated in terms of the spread of yield zones into the rockmass due to nearby mining activities.The performance of the drift stability is evaluated at various mining stages, employing the RMC (Random Monte-Carlo) technique in conjunction with finite difference modeling to study the probability of unsatisfactory performance of the drift.The results are presented and categorized with respect to probability, instability and mining stage.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.194
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207