MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791286876 · doi:10.1080/25726668.2018.1437334

Cave fragmentation in a cave-to-mill context at the New Afton mine Part II: implications to mill performance

2018· article· en· W2791286876 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Nadolski, Christopher O‘Hara, Bern Klein, Davide Elmo, Craig J.R. Hart

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComminutionMillMuckCaveShovelMining engineeringEngineeringFragmentation (computing)BreakageGeologyMetallurgyMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceArchaeologyGeographySoil scienceComputer scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The productivity of milling circuits is sensitive to the size of mill feed. Uncertainty about the size of caved ore presents unique challenges to forecasting and controlling mill throughput rates. Part I of this paper showed how fragmentation size and hang-up frequency relate to geology, proximity of drawpoints to the cave boundary and the height of draw at the New Afton mine. The second part, presented here, investigates the impact of varying caved fragment size on mill performance. Analysis of historical mine and mill data showed that mill feed size and subsequently mill throughput are sensitive to the areas being mucked within the cave. Fragmentation measurements of drawpoint muck, comminution tests and calibrated mill models were used to assess the impact of variations in feed size and hardness on New Afton mill performance. Image-based size analyses of drawpoint muck and comminution tests showed that coarser material generally contained harder rock.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.439
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207