MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Graphical representation of production results versus estimates in placer mining

2015· article· en· W2108684221 on OpenAlexaff
R. H. T. Garnett

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Earth Science Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section B · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsBAH Enterprises (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlacer miningVariable (mathematics)StatisticsLogarithmRepresentation (politics)EstimationComputer scienceMathematicsData miningGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Placer deposits are renowned for the difficulties inherent in the estimation of their mineral reserves. Mining and treatment often produce a recovered grade very different from that originally estimated. A measure traditionally used in the placer mining industry to report such technical performance is the ratio of recovered grade to estimated grade. The ratio, referred to as a factor, is determined and reported for a specified duration of continuous mining or for a mining block size. Over the life of mine numerous data pairs are generated for the estimated grade and the corresponding factor. The frequently inverse relationship between the two measures is expressed graphically on a scatter plot. Logarithmic scales are used for both the independent variable (estimated grade) and the dependent variable (factor). The factor may vary widely, and best-fit trend lines are derived by using either power or quadratic polynomial formulae. The relative estimated grade (each estimate divided by the average of all estimates of grade within the mined extent of a placer) may replace estimated grade as the independent variable. The graphical representation allows performance to be compared and contrasted for different mineral placers and mining methods employing diverse units of grade measurement.Model trend lines result from the direction of mining in the longitudinal and transverse dimensions of the placer. The mining site, whether in the proximal or distal zone of the placer, also influences the form of the model. Other parameters, apart from estimated grade, affect the factor. They include sample support, sample spacing and method of mining. Sampling density and the duration of the reporting period determine the degree of slope and the curvature of the trend line. An important model results from attempting to exploit marginal grade outliers. Uses of the plot include monitoring the effects of changes in operational policy, mine planning and revenue forecasting. The average, historic factor achieved in a deposit, in places used as a correction factor, is not always a reliable indicator of future performance in the same placer. Care should be applied when using such a factor to substantiate reserve estimates. The simple graphical technique continues to be employed, and its application is not limited to placers.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.144

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0430.007

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Earth Science Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section BSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207