Capital investment appraisal for advanced mining technology : case studies in GPS and information based surface mining technology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadian, American and Australian mining industries are currently faced with the requirement to streamline their operations in light of new economic realities. Automation has been seen as a key step toward the survival and competitiveness of these industries. Unfortunately, technology providers seldom have the expertise or resources to properly transfer technology from the development stage to the productive stage. Mining companies, the potential customers of technology providers are similarly inexperienced at appraising and implementing these new technologies. The manufacturing industry is well experienced in appraising (referred most commonly in manufacturing as justifying) and implementing new technology and has developed numerous capital investment appraisal (CIA) methods that can more accurately appraise new technology. These techniques offer the potential to be adapted to suit the mining industry. The primary objective of this thesis is to investigate the usefulness of various decisionmaking tools in the CIA of advanced technologies for the mining industry. This research discusses the current technological situation in the mining industry to show the requirement for new capital appraisal techniques. The current evaluation methods are analyzed and their weaknesses are identified. The classification schemes and CIA methods derived from the manufacturing industry are adapted to mining. Analytical examples are provided in terms of hypothetical situations and two case studies at an open pit copper mine in British Columbia are described. The first case study reveals the limitations of current CIA methods when applied to advanced technology and applies alternative CIA techniques whose applicability is rated by the decision-maker at the mine as being "very useful". The second case study uses object based simulation as a CIA tool for a blending project by estimating parameters within the project that were previously only subjective opinion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".