Optimizing a mine haul truck wheel motors’ condition monitoring program Use of proportional hazards modeling
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
Discusses work completed at Cardinal River Coals in Canada to improve the existing oil analysis condition monitoring program being undertaken for wheel motors. Oil analysis results from a fleet of 55 haul truck wheel motors were analyzed along with their respective failures and repairs over a nine‐year period. Detailed data cleaning procedures were applied to prepare data for modeling. In addition, definitions of failure and suspension were clarified depending on equipment condition at replacement. Using the proportional hazards model approach, the key condition variables relating to failures were found from among the 19 elements monitored, plus sediment and viscosity. Those key variables were then incorporated into a decision model that provided an unambiguous and optimal recommendation on whether to continue operating a wheel motor or to remove it for overhaul on the basis of data obtained from an oil sample. Wheel motor failure implied extensive planetary gear or sun gear damage necessitating the replacement of one or more major internal components in a general overhaul. The decision model, when triggered by incoming data, provided both a recommendation based on an optimal decision policy as well as an estimate of the unit’s remaining useful life. By optimizing the times of repair as a function both of age and condition data a 20‐30 percent potential savings in overhaul costs over existing practice was identified.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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