MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588119007 · doi:10.1504/ijmme.2017.10003266

Analysing equipment allocation through queuing theory and Monte-Carlo simulations in surface mining operations

2017· article· en· W2588119007 on OpenAlexaff
Dilip Sembakutti, Agus P. Sasmito, Mustafa Kumral

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckShovelQueueing theoryQueueEngineeringMonte Carlo methodIdleTransport engineeringOperations researchComputer scienceAutomotive engineeringStatisticsMathematicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Shovels and trucks are widely used in earth moving and surface mining operations as a materials handling system. Insufficient equipment allocation for a given fleet results in not achieving production targets, high production costs and opportunity costs associated with shovel idle times or truck queues. Match factor is commonly used to measure the compatibility among trucks and shovels in terms of fleet size, truck cycle and shovel loading times. The calculated match factor is a deterministic value and does not reflect the sensitivities to unexpected variations of cycle, loading and waiting times. In this paper, the effects of uncertainties associated with shovel loading, truck waiting times, truck cycle times and fleet availability on match factor are assessed. In doing so, queuing theory is applied to model the waiting times for trucks, and Monte-Carlo samplings are used to model fleet availability, shovel waiting and truck cycle times. The proposed approach is demonstrated through a case study.

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)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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