Assessment of Sortability Using a Dual-Energy X-ray Transmission System for Studied Sulphide Ore
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In hard rock mining, sensor-based sorting can be applied as a pre-concentration method before the material enters the mill. X-ray transmission sensors have been explored in mining since 1972. Sorting ore of acceptable grade and waste material before processing at the mill can reduce the amount of tailings per unit of valuable metal in the mining operation and have many economic benefits. Ore samples used in this paper are from a polymetallic carbonate replacement deposit (gold-silver-lead-zinc sulphide) in Southeast Europe. This paper focuses on how the Dual-Energy X-ray Transmission (DE-XRT) data is generated and used for ore characterization and sortability for this sulphide ore. The method used in the DE-XRT analysis in this project is based on the dual-material decomposition method, which is used in the medical industry for radiology. This technique can distinguish sulphides from non-sulphides. However, the correlation developed between the DE-XRT response and the metal content is lacking. As a result, the DE-XRT response can only classify the material effectively but cannot reliably predict the metal content.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".