MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Network modelling of underground mine layout: two case studies

2007· article· en· W2094311069 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Transactions in Operational Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersUniversity of Melbourne
KeywordsHaulageUnderground mining (soft rock)Mining engineeringConstraint (computer-aided design)Computer scienceMillGeologyEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The dominant working structure of an underground mine is a set of interconnected tunnels which provides access to ore zones and haulage of ore from the designated ore zones to the mill. This set of interconnected tunnels forms a network. We describe a mathematical network model and the modelling features of our two software tools for designing underground mine layouts that minimise associated costs. The application of these techniques is illustrated in two industry case studies. In the first, we apply the underground network optimisation tool to design an extension to an Australian gold mine where 15 new distinct orebodies are located in a 3 km long region, several hundred metres underground. In a second case study, we design a single decline for accessing a large orebody where a turning circle constraint is a significant factor. An efficient decline is found using the decline optimisation tool.

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 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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.357

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.242
GPT teacher head0.432
Teacher spread0.190 · 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