MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911165846 · doi:10.1080/16843703.2018.1564485

Cost optimization of drilling operations in open-pit mines through parameter tuning

2019· article· en· W2911165846 on OpenAlexafffund
Ömer Faruk Uğurlu, Mustafa Kumral

Bibliographic record

VenueQuality Technology & Quantitative Management · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDrillingDrillComputer sciencePenetration ratePetroleum engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Problem statement: Increasing efficiency and performance of bench drilling in open-pit mines has the potential to generate considerable savings. This increase can be realized by monitoring the drilling operation, analyzing monitoring data with statistical tools and optimizing operational variables. Finding the best configuration of controllable drilling parameters (e.g. rotation speed, pulldown force and bailing air pressure) and determining replacement time of drill bits would assist to increase penetration rate and optimize drilling operation cost.Approach: In this paper, the effects of controllable variables on drilling performance are quantified by the face-centered central composite design, and the replacement time of drill bits is optimized using the genetic algorithm.Results: Results show that the proposed approach could be used to determine the optimal drilling parameters and minimize the energy cost in open-pit mines.Abbreviations: FCCCD: face-centered central composite design; RPM: revolutions per minute; PDF: push down force; BAP: bailing air pressure; ANOVA: analysis of variance

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuality Technology & Quantitative ManagementSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207