MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608478472 · doi:10.1590/0370-44672016700043

A high-level dynamic analysis approach for studying global process plant availability and production time in the early stages of mining projects

2017· article· en· W2608478472 on OpenAlexaff
Dennis Travagini Cremonese, Bhaskar Karanth, Giorgio de Tomi

Bibliographic record

VenueREM - International Engineering Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
FundersConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo
KeywordsProcess (computing)Production (economics)Stage (stratigraphy)EngineeringProject teamProduct (mathematics)Work (physics)Industrial engineeringComputer scienceOperations researchSystems engineeringManufacturing engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the early stage of front-end studies of a Mining Project, the global availability (i.e. number of hours a plant is available for production) and production (number of hours a plant is actually operated with material) time of the process plant are normally assumed based on the experience of the study team. Understanding and defining the availability hours at the early stages of the project are important for the future stages of the project, as drastic changes in work hours will impact the economics of the project at that stage. An innovative high-level dynamic modeling approach has been developed to assist in the rapid evaluation of assumptions made by the study team. This model incorporates systems or equipment that are commonly used in mining projects from mine to product stockyard discharge after the processing plant. It includes subsystems that will simulate all the component handling, and major process plant systems required for a mining project. The output data provided by this high-level dynamic simulation approach will enhance the confidence level of engineering carried out during the early stage of the project. This study discusses the capabilities of the approach, and a test case compared with standard techniques used in mining project front-end studies.

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)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueREM - International Engineering JournalSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207