Development of risk-informed, performance-based asset management in mining
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses possibilities of developing a holistic risk-informed, performance-based asset management in mining (RIPBAMM). This process would consist of modelling and probabilistic quantification regarding decision support performance indicators. It assists decision-makers in determining not only which mine improvement investment options should be implemented, but also how to prioritize resources for their implementation based on their predicted levels of profitability. The RIPBAMM approach will complement and integrate existing main mine activities such as exploration, ore body modelling, mine design, planning and scheduling, exploitation (all the phases of the mine life), mineral treatment, cost and market model, operational safety and health, environmental issues, mining equipment reliability and maintenance process, equipment selection model, security, etc. RIPBAMM will involve an integrated assessment of dominant influence factors and performance measures related to mining operations. This process is intended to maximize both net present value (NPV) of the mine, and long-term profitability through a continuous support to a decision-making process. It may be particularly useful while optimizing several mine sites belonging to the same mining company. Initial risk informed asset management (RIAM) applications have been initially developed for the nuclear power industry. Afterwards, this process has been adapted to provide decision-making support to other types of power stations, complex facilities (usually capital-intensive), or even groups of such facilities across a wide variety of industries. RIPBAMM is introducing numerous (stochastic) models and supporting performance metrics that can ultimately be employed in order to support decisions that affect the allocation and management of mine resources (i.e. financial support, employment, scheduling, etc.).
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".