MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909032094 · doi:10.1504/ijhvs.2019.10018454

Analysing human effect on the reliability of mining equipment

2019· article· en· W2909032094 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Heavy Vehicle Systems · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckReliability (semiconductor)EngineeringHeavy equipmentReliability engineeringMining industryOperator (biology)Transport engineeringAutomotive engineeringMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the mineral industries, the heavy equipment is widely used, and the operator performance is a significant factor for fulfilling intended functions of this equipment. This study aims to analyse and interpret the effect of the human factor on the reliability of the equipment used in the mining industry. In doing so, a combined approach based on the reliability analysis, statistical inference and a machine learning technique is proposed. A case study was conducted on haul trucks in a mining operation. The case study showed that the reliability drops of haul trucks vary in the range of 0.84% and 2.45% in a shift. It was also calculated that 16.9% of these reliability drops were associated with operator habits. A truck's condition at the beginning of a shift and the initial reliability contribute to 36.3% and 31.1% of the reliability drops, respectively. The findings can be used in scheduling training programs, short-term mine planning, and simulation of material handling systems.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.134
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · 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