MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2141292481 · doi:10.1504/ijmme.2012.047998

Mixed-Integer Linear Programming formulation for block-cave sequence optimisation

2012· article· en· W2141292481 on OpenAlexaff
Yashar Pourrahimian, Hooman Askari Nasab, Dwayne D. Tannant

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInteger programmingPlannerScheduling (production processes)Linear programmingMathematical optimizationBlock (permutation group theory)ScheduleNet present valueComputer scienceProduction (economics)EngineeringOperations researchMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Relying only on manual planning methods or computer software based on heuristic algorithms will lead to mine schedules that are not the optimal global solution. The objective of this paper is to develop a practical optimisation framework to schedule production for caving operations. We present two Mixed–Integer Linear Programming (MILP) formulations for the long–term production scheduling of block caving. First, we solve the problem at the drawpoint level. Then, we aggregate drawpoints into larger units referred to as clusters. The formulations are developed, implemented and verified in the TOMLAB/CPLEX environment. The production scheduler aims to maximise the Net Present Value (NPV) of the mining operation while the mine planner has control over the development rate, vertical mining rate, lateral mining rate, mining capacity, maximum number of active drawpoints and advancement direction. Application and comparison of the models for production scheduling using real mine data over 15 periods are presented.

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 score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.226 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mining and Mineral EngineeringSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207