MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Mine schedule optimisation with ventilation constraints: a case study

2017· article· en· W2770419041 on OpenAlexaff
Hongbin Zhang, Rebecca Hauta, Lorrie Fava

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsCentre for Excellence in Mining Innovation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScheduleVentilation (architecture)SolverConstraint (computer-aided design)EngineeringComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Operations researchMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a process for optimising mine schedules with ventilation constraints using the Schedule Optimization Tool (SOT), the Ventilation Constraint Module (VCM) and a ventilation network solver (Ventsim). The VCM was developed as a component of MIRARCO’s SOT+ research project. Proper ventilation is critical for underground mines to operate safely, yet it is often not adequately considered early in the mine planning cycle. The need to account for ventilation early in the long-term planning cycle motivated the development of the VCM. The VCM generates constraints on the schedule of mining activities for each zone and for each stage of the mine life, based on available airflows. These constraints are intended to ensure that a mine schedule will be feasible from a ventilation perspective. Adhering to these ventilationbased constraints, as well as other constraints related to the project, SOT maximises the net present value (NPV) of the long-term schedule. The VCM will also assist the user in identifying opportunities to redistribute the airflow in the mine in ways that support higher-NPV schedules. A case study for a hypothetical underground mine will be presented, showing that the VCM supports the generation of optimised life-of-mine schedules that adhere to realistic ventilation constraints.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.738
Threshold uncertainty score0.189

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207