Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research contributes to understanding the interaction between ground-related problems and mining systems as a basis for the development of flexible mining systems. It has demonstrated that ground-related problems impose a significant operating risk factor that requires particular attention in proactive mine planning and design. A new philosophy for quantifying the impact of ground-related problems and assessing the links between mine planning and geomechanics was established. The various types of potential problems were classified based on review of case studies and the surveillance of ground failures in several underground hard rock mines of the Sudbury Basin. It was demonstrated that, despite serious efforts in the design of underground mines, ground-related problems still cannot be totally avoided. A time-dependent internal risk model was established to quantify the impact of ground-related problems in mine production systems. Subjective probabilities provide the input for a reliability analysis, which derives the required input parameters for production simulation. Reliability analyses that are currently used to calculate the reliability of mine equipment were applied for the case of mine subsystems with ground-related problems. A cost impact model that is dependent on the parameters determined in a reliability analysis was introduced. Flexibility needs in mine planning and design, with respect to ground-related problems, were analyzed through conventional discounted cash flow analysis, real options analysis, production simulation, and Monte-Carlo simulation. Approaches that are currently applied in investment science and decision making were evaluated in terms of their applicability to evaluate such flexibility needs in mining systems. A methodology that includes the applicability of project valuation analyses to assess flexible mining systems with respect to potential ground-related problems, along with a flexibility index, were introduced. Their applicability is demonstrated through test case studies. Contingency planning and flexibility assessment by such means can be integrated into future mine production systems to account for the potential risk of ground-related problems for more proactive mine planning and design.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".