MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051902589 · doi:10.1179/174328608x362668

Decline design in underground mines using constrained path optimisation

2008· article· en· W2051902589 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Brazil, Peter Grossman, D. H. Lee, J Rubinstein, D. A. Thomas, N. C. Wormald

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section A · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsHaulageTruckPath (computing)Underground mining (soft rock)Key (lock)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationEngineeringIndustrial engineeringOperations researchAlgorithmCoal miningMathematicsAutomotive engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on the problem of optimising the design of an underground mine decline, so as to minimise the costs associated with infrastructure development and haulage over the lifetime of the mine. A key design consideration is that the decline must be navigable by trucks and mining equipment, hence must satisfy both gradient and turning circle constraints. The decline is modelled as a mathematical network that captures the operational constraints and costs of a real mine, and is optimised using geometric techniques for constrained path optimisation. A deep understanding of the geometric properties of gradient and turning circle constrained paths has led to a very efficient procedure for designing optimal declines. This procedure has been automated in a new version of a software tool, decline optimisation tool. A case study is described indicating the substantial improvements of the new version of the decline optimisation tool over the earlier one.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.191 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations27
Published2008
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