Capital investment appraisal for the integration of new technology into mining systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New technologies have been widely recognized as the key to the achievement of competitiveness in the mining industry, enabling costs and environmental impact to be reduced while increasing safety, flexibility and productivity. Research has been undertaken with industry to develop management approaches for appraisal of the integration of new technology into mining systems. The traditional capital investment appraisal (CIA) methods currently used in the mining industry are reviewed and their development and limitations are examined. Reference is made to how technologies affect mining operations—often bringing benefits in 'soft' or qualitative forms. A new CIA classification scheme is presented that aims to assist in the selection of the appropriate CIA method, according to the type of technology and the mining situation. A review of the theory underlying three particular CIA methods that are considered to offer significant potential—activity-based costing, options pricing and the Analytical Hierarchy Process—is accompanied by case studies to illustrate their application to technology integration in mining operations. A concluding discussion of new technology integration emphasizes the need for greater awareness of appraisal issues and methods.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".