MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Towards mining schedule optimisation constrained by geomechanics

2014· article· en· W2623169724 on OpenAlexafffund
Negar Saeidi, Dean L. Millar, Lorrie Fava, Ming Cai

Bibliographic record

VenueDeep mining · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRock Mechanics and Modeling
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersOntario Centres of Excellence
KeywordsGeomechanicsExcavationInduced seismicityScheduleRock mass classificationGeologyConstraint (computer-aided design)Geotechnical engineeringMining engineeringStability (learning theory)Process (computing)EngineeringComputer scienceSeismologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports work-in-progress that has the aim of incorporating geotechnical constraints on the optimisation of schedules of underground mine excavation activities. Optimal mine schedules are those for which the net present value (NPV) is maximised under a given financial model. The approach aims to consider the visco-elastic behaviour of rock when analysing the stability of excavations for constraint formulation. Changes in deviatoric stress around multiple, sequential openings or excavations are mapped and are shown to be influenced by both changes in the time between excavation events and the sequence of excavating events. The results of this analysis are presented in this paper. The approach is predicated on a causality principle for mine seismicity which requires a time dependent response (visco-elastic or possibly visco-elasto-plastic) of the rock mass. This is potentially difficult to conceive for rock masses at great depth, but is nevertheless evidenced by mine seismicity records from deep level mining operations, some of which are reviewed in this paper. The output of these geotechnical sequencing studies will ultimately be cast as constraints on a mine schedule optimisation process.

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)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDeep miningSame topicRock Mechanics and ModelingFrench-language works237,207