MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588808492 · doi:10.17580/gzh.2017.01.07

Preparation and conduction of a production blast at an intersection in Kirov Mine, Apatit

2017· article· en· W2588808492 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. S. Sakerin, D. O. Konstantinov, S. A. Kozyrev, M. N. Overchenko

Bibliographic record

VenueGornyi Zhurnal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeotechnical and Geomechanical Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIntersection (aeronautics)Production (economics)GeologyMining engineeringGeochemistryEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsTransport engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Apatit company mines apatite–nepheline ore using mainly the underground method which produces more than 70 % of the overall minerals extracted. In accord with the accepted mining technology, the operating horizons are developed from the center to the sides, with one or two cuts to get to another level. When two cuts are made on a horizon, in order to reach the required production output, two mining fronts are advanced toward each other, which results in formation of a block–pillar, and this intersection is cut at the end of the horizon development. After the analysis of the actual geotechnical, geological and geomechanical conditions, a production blast to break the intersection in Kirov Mine has been evaluated and prepared. Total volume broken by the blast is 726 thou t. Overall weight of explosive to break this intersection is 320 thou kg. Based on the geometry of the intersection and the number of blast hole rings, it has been decided to blast the holes from the sides toward the center of the intersection. As per the seismic safety standards, maximum weight of explosive per delay stage is evaluated, and blasting patterns and sequence are described. Considering particulars of the production blast in the intersection, the classical scheme of nonelectric blasting was used in combination with the electronic blast initiation system EBIS i-kon II manufactured by Orica CIS, which allowed blasting with seismically safe weight of explosive per delay stage. The production blast at the intersection used 1500 electronic detonators (total number of borehole charges was 2050). EBIS were installed in the blasthole rings, but their simultaneous blasting endangered the seismic safety. In blasting per rows with seismically unsafe weight of explosive per delay stage, the rings of holes were blasted uniformly, with a delay of 3–5 ms between the holes. The control and execution blocks had modem communication. Blasting was executed from the surface by means of telephone circuit. Orica CIS personnel controlled actuation of each delay stage using a special program. Seismic eff ect of the blast on buildings and structures was estimated using Instantel equipment (Canada) including 8-channel seismic measuring devices Minimate Plus. Actual PPV at all measurement points were below the maximum allowable values. The production blasting with the electronic initiation systems has yielded higher quality fragmentation of ore with the ensured seismic safety of the surface buildings and structures.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.238
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGornyi ZhurnalSame topicGeotechnical and Geomechanical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207