Managing equipment innovations in mining: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technological innovations in mining equipment have led to increased productivity and occupational health and safety (OHS) performance, but their introduction also brings new risks for workers. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to provide support for mining industry managers who are required to reconcile equipment choices with OHS and productivity. METHODS: Examination of the literature through interdisciplinary digital databases. Databases were searched using specific combinations of keywords and limited to studies dating back no farther than 1992. The ``snowball'' technique was also used to examining the references listed in research articles initially identified with the databases. RESULTS: A total of 19 contextual factors were identified as having the potential to influence the OHS and productivity leverage of equipment innovations. The most often cited among these factors are the level of training provided to the equipment operators, operator experience and age, supervisor leadership abilities, and maintaining good relations within work crews. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions between these factors are not discussed in mining innovation literature. It would be helpful to use a systems thinking approach which incorporates interaction between relevant actors and factors to define properly the most sensitive aspects of innovation management as it applies to mining equipment.
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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 teacher head, 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".