MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An application of mathematical programming to determine the best height of draw in block-cave sequence optimisation

2014· article· en· W2036018365 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Pourrahimian, Hooman Askari-Nasab

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section A · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteger programmingProduction scheduleScheduleMathematical optimizationScheduling (production processes)Block (permutation group theory)Linear programmingComputer scienceBlock schedulingProduction planningProduction (economics)AlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning block-caving operations poses complexities in different areas such as safety, environment, ground control and production scheduling. The objective of this paper is to develop a practical optimisation framework for production scheduling of block-caving operations. A mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) formulation is developed, implemented and verified in the TOMLAB/CPLEX environment. In this formulation, the slices within each draw column are aggregated into selective units using a hierarchical clustering algorithm and the mining reserve is computed as a result of the optimal production schedule for each advancement direction. This paper presents a model application of a production schedule for 102 drawpoints with 3457 slices over 14 periods. The results show in order to obtain the maximum net present value (NPV), only 88% of the reserve is extracted. Also, the solving time for the presented method is 78 times faster than method without slice aggregation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.228
Threshold uncertainty score0.392

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section ASame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207