Stochastic optimization for strategic mine planning: A decade of developments
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
Conventional approaches to estimating reserves, optimizing mine planning, and production forecasting result in single, and often biased, forecasts. This is largely due to the non-linear propagation of errors in understanding orebodies throughout the chain of mining. A new mine planning paradigm is considered herein, integrating two elements: stochastic simulation and stochastic optimization. These elements provide an extended mathematical framework that allows modeling and direct integration of orebody uncertainty to mine design, production planning, and valuation of mining projects and operations. This stochastic framework increases the value of production schedules by 25%. Case studies also show that stochastic optimal pit limits (i) can be about 15% larger in terms of total tonnage when compared to the conventional optimal pit limits, while (ii) adding about 10% of net present value to that reported above for stochastic production scheduling within the conventionally optimal pit limits. Results suggest a potential new contribution to the sustainable utilization of natural resources.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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