A Clustering Algorithm for Block-Cave Production Scheduling
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Production scheduling is one of the most important steps in the block-caving design process. Optimum production scheduling could add significant value to a mining project. The goal of long-term mine production scheduling is to determine the mining sequence, which optimizes the company’s strategic objectives while honouring the operational limitations over the mine life. Mathematical programming with exact solution methods is considered a practical tool to model block-caving production scheduling problems; this tool makes it possible to search for the optimum values while considering all of the constraints involved in the operation. This kind of model seeks to account for real-world conditions and must respond to all practical problems which extraction procedures face. Consequently, the number of subjected constraints is considerable and has tighter boundaries, solving the model is not possible or requires a lot of time. It is thus crucial to reduce the size of the problem meaningfully by using techniques which ensure that the absolute solution has less deviation from the original model. This paper presents a clustering algorithm to reduce the size of the large-scale models in order to solve the problem in a reasonable time. The results show a significant reduction in the size of the model and CPU time. Application and comparison of the production schedule based on the draw control system with the clustering technique is presented using 2,487 drawpoints to be extracted over 32 years.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it