MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3016780612 · doi:10.1080/25726668.2020.1749431

An automated production targeting goal programming framework for oil sands mine planning considering organic rich solids

2020· article· en· W3016780612 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ahlam Maremi, Eugene Ben-Awuah, Yashar Pourrahimian

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAsphaltProduction (economics)Petroleum engineeringOil sandsEnvironmental scienceOil productionScheduling (production processes)Enhanced oil recoveryWaste managementEngineeringProcess engineeringOperations managementMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In oil sands mining, bitumen and fines contents are used to predict ore processability. However, experimental results show that certain solid fractions known as Organic Rich Solids (ORS) negatively affect the overall bitumen recovery. A conceptual mine planning framework based on a goal programming model for oil sands production scheduling and waste management is presented. Bitumen recovery is additionally adjusted based on the ORS content. The model features automated production targeting (APT) and limited duration stockpiling constraints that optimize the annual production capacities. The model is implemented with two scenarios. Scenario 1 uses processing recovery calculated based on Alberta Energy Regulatory requirements while Scenario 2 uses processing recovery additionally adjusted based on ORS content. Results for Scenario 1 show a 3.46% overestimation of net present value compared to Scenario 2. The APT constraints provide planners a robust and efficient technique for determining annual production tonnages with minimum periodic variations.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score0.931

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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