MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3055409566 · doi:10.3390/min10090734

An LSTM Approach for SAG Mill Operational Relative-Hardness Prediction

2020· article· en· W3055409566 on OpenAlexafffund
Sebastian Avalos, Willy Kracht, Julián M. Ortíz

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersFondo de Financiamiento de Centros de Investigación en Áreas PrioritariasComisión Nacional de Investigación Científica y TecnológicaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCategorical variableMillComminutionGrindingComputer scienceBlock (permutation group theory)Sample (material)Artificial neural networkData miningArtificial intelligenceEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringMachine learningGeologyEngineeringMathematicsMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ore hardness plays a critical role in comminution circuits. Ore hardness is usually characterized at sample support in order to populate geometallurgical block models. However, the required attributes are not always available and suffer for lack of temporal resolution. We propose an operational relative-hardness definition and the use of real-time operational data to train a Long Short-Term Memory, a deep neural network architecture, to forecast the upcoming operational relative-hardness. We applied the proposed methodology on two SAG mill datasets, of one year period each. Results show accuracies above 80% on both SAG mills at a short upcoming period of times and around 1% of misclassifications between soft and hard characterization. The proposed application can be extended to any crushing and grinding equipment to forecast categorical attributes that are relevant to downstream processes.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations13
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207