Algorithmic integration of geological uncertainty in pushback designs for complex multiprocess open pit mines
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 open pit mine design methods ignore geological uncertainty in terms of metal content and material types which can impact the quantities processed in multiple process mining operations. A stochastic framework permits the use of geological simulations to quantify geological uncertainty; however, existing models have either not been extended to pushback design for mines with multiple elements, multiple materials and multiple destinations, or are limited in their ability to incorporate joint local uncertainty represented through sets of geological simulations. This work aims to integrate grade and material uncertainty in pushback design for open pit mines. Two formulations are proposed to modify existing pushback designs to reduce risk in terms of the amounts of material going to each destination, while maintaining similar pushback sizes when compared to the original design. The proposed formulations are applied at BHP Billiton's Escondida Norte mine, Chile, and show a 35–61% reduction in variability in terms of quantities of material sent to the various processes.
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 | 0.000 | 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