MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064032981 · doi:10.4236/ajibm.2014.41006

Introduction of Innovative Equipment in Mining: Impact on Productivity

2014· article· en· W2064032981 on OpenAlexafffund
Bryan Boudreau-Trudel, Kazimierz Zaraś, Sylvie Nadeau, Isabelle Deschamps

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Industrial and Business Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
FundersFonds de recherche du Québec – Nature et technologiesFondation de l’Université du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueÉcole de technologie supérieure
KeywordsProductivityCompetitor analysisCompetition (biology)Reliability (semiconductor)BusinessOperations managementIndustrial organizationRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental economicsEngineeringMarketingEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this era of increased competition and rapid change, mining companies must remain attentive to all opportunities to gain an advantage over competitors. Acquisition of innovative equipment is often viewed as a way of decreasing operating costs, for example, by increasing machinery reliability. The objective of this paper is to examine the impact of new equipment on productivity in underground mining. Ten projects were examined using three indicators: the cost per meter drilled, the cost per hour of use and the equipment availability ratio. The results clearly show that the introduction of new equipment with technological innovations does not necessarily improve productivity. In some cases, performance indicators even dropped. We suggest that future research should focus on identifying the mechanisms and conditions that ensure the increases in productivity following the introduction of the latest innovations in mining equipment. Successful introductions of such equipment likely depend on the conditions surrounding it.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.957
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Industrial and Business ManagementSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207