MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759449673 · doi:10.5539/ibr.v10n10p198

Trade-off Assessment on Two Steel Ball Brands Use at the Ball Mill Plant of a Ghanaian Mine

2017· article· en· W2759449673 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
James Obiri-Yeboah, Alex Kwaku Peprah, Hope Nador

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Business Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSteel millProfit (economics)Ball (mathematics)Steel companyMillProduction costOperations managementBusinessEngineeringManufacturing engineeringEconomicsMathematicsMechanical engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Realistically, this research shows that, the type or brand of input reagent such as steel ball is a vital parameter to be considered to ensure cost saving in mineral processing business. Logically, the study pointed out the shortfall in the acceptance of input reagent (steel ball) of a production system on only the unit price variance for different items. Clearly, the paper aims at closing the lack of information gap existing in the Ghanaian mining company to overcome the situation of compromising efficiency of the plant production whilst maximizing profit. Furthermore, assessing the overall effect by taking into consideration the operating variables, painted a pragmatic and reliable picture of the prevailing scenario. Consequently, company 1 with a mean discharge product of 49.42 % passing 150 µm was at a cost of US$1.68 whiles company 2 with mean discharge product of 50.12 % passing 150 µm was at a cost of US$1.30. Comparatively, company 2 brand of steel ball usage gave an overall trade-off of 0.8 % as against the usage of company 1 steel ball brand. The paper recommended the use of company 2 steel ball brand as a cost saving enhancement decision for gold production in the Ghanaian Mine.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.350
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Business ResearchSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207