MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2322193049 · doi:10.5055/jem.2010.0011

The use of virtual simulators for emergency response training in the mining industry

2010· article· en· W2322193049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
BSc Damian Schofield, BSc Andrew Dasys

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Emergency Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTraining (meteorology)Emergency responseComputer scienceMedical emergencyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

By its very nature, underground mining can be a hazardous activity. The history of all countries where mining has taken place unfortunately often contains major disasters. The successful initial control of such incidents is crucially dependent on the effectiveness of the mine’s immediate emergency response and the mine’s emergency preparedness arrangements, which underpin this response.Emergency response is sometimes given a low priority in training planning because catastrophic events occur infrequently. The majority of mine emergency rescue training is traditionally focused on training the rescue teams. A number of computer augmented training systems have recently been developed to perform or assist all levels of mine personnel in the process of mine rescue training.Modern simulation systems range from tactile systems that physically represent the real world to purely computer generated visualizations. In a mining context, a primary aim of developing virtual environments is to allow mine personnel to practice and experience mine processes that will be encountered in the day-to-day operations at a mine site.This article provides a review of the use of such simulators in the mining industry and details current work being undertaken in Australia and Canada to develop the next generation of this technology in the mining field. This work is based on an extensive literature review and the insight and the experience of the two authors who have each worked in this field for more than 20 years.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations5
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Emergency ManagementSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207