MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3106788490 · doi:10.18280/jesa.530505

Production Scheduling of Open Pit Mine Using Sequential Branch-and-Cut and Longest Path Algorithm: An Application from an African Copper Mine

2020· article· en· W3106788490 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Devendra Joshi, Susanta Kumar Satpathy

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal Européen des Systèmes Automatisés · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopper mineScheduling (production processes)Open-pit miningMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmEngineeringMathematicsCopperMining engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open pit mine production scheduling assigns mining blocks in different production periods for maximising profits after satisfying geotechnical and operational constraints. In this paper, two Open pit mine production scheduling models were applied in an African copper deposit. The first model is a traditional model with more tight resource constraints; the second model is a more robust model where resource constraints are relaxed by penalizing the objective function. Both the models were solved using two step algorithms: (a) year wise production scheduling using a sequential branch-and-cut algorithm; and (b) an iterative longest path algorithm to improve the solution generated from branch-and-cut. Results demonstrated that due to the tight constraints in Model 1, the optimizer was unable to generate a feasible solution after the first period, therefore the lower limit metal production constraint was eliminated to generate a feasible solution; however, Model 2 was able to generate a feasible solution for all periods. Results show that both the models generated nearly the same amount of ore, waste, metal content, and mine life. Model 2 generates relatively more net present value as compared to Model 1, whereas, the computational time required for solving the scheduling problem is relatively less for Model 1 than for Model 2.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.919
Threshold uncertainty score0.769

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal Européen des Systèmes AutomatisésSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207