Application of Data Analytics Techniques to Establish Geometallurgical Relationships to Bond Work Index at the Paracutu Mine, Minas Gerais, Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of geometallurgical data is essential to building geometallurgical models that capture physical variability in the orebody and can be used for the optimization of mine planning and the prediction of milling circuit performance. However, multivariate complexity and compositional data constraints can make this analysis challenging. This study applies unsupervised and supervised learning to establish relationships between the Bond ball mill work index (BWI) and geomechanical, geophysical and geochemical variables for the Paracatu gold orebody. The regolith and fresh rock geometallurgical domains are established from two cluster sets resulting from K-means clustering of the first three principal component (PC) scores of isometric log-ratio (ilr) coordinates of geochemical data and standardized BWI, geomechanical and geophysical data. The first PC is attributed to weathering and reveals a strong relationship between BWI and rock strength and fracture intensity in the regolith. Random forest (RF) classification of BWI in the fresh rock identifies the greater importance of geochemical ilr balances relative to geomechanical and geophysical variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".