MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907379475 · doi:10.1080/25726668.2018.1563742

Long-term production scheduling optimization and 3D material mixing analysis for block caving mines

2019· article· en· W2907379475 on OpenAlexafffund
Firouz Khodayari, Yashar Pourrahimian

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsScheduling (production processes)Block schedulingScheduleBlock (permutation group theory)Production scheduleEngineeringBlock structureMixing (physics)SoftwareComputer scienceStructural engineeringMathematicsOperations managementFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although some scheduling optimization models can be found in the literature, few of them include material flow and the resulting dilution. In this paper, a 3D mixing methodology is proposed to be incorporated into the production schedule model. To capture horizontal and vertical mixing, different scenarios are generated based on the particles that fall into a 3D cone of movement, CoM. The proposed model is a block caving scheduling optimizer, BCSO, which includes mixing in the optimization. The BCSO was tested on a real-case block caving mine with 424 drawpoints; also, a number of production schedules were generated for the same mine using PCBC GEOVIA software. Resulting production schedules show that the BCSO can improve the NPV of the project by 2% to 4% compared to the best case generated by PCBC.

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)0.001
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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207