MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247584660 · doi:10.1504/ijmme.2018.091217

Draw rate management system using mathematical programming in extraction sequence optimisation of block cave mining

2018· article· en· W4247584660 on OpenAlexaff
Farshad Nezhadshahmohammad, H. Aghababaei, Yashar Pourrahimian

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mining and Mineral Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)Scheduling (production processes)CaveInteger programmingComputer scienceEngineeringControl (management)Mathematical optimizationOperations researchIndustrial engineeringAlgorithmMathematicsArtificial intelligenceOperations managementArchaeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning of caving operations poses complexities in different areas such as safety, ground control and production scheduling. Draw control is fundamental to the success of block-cave operation. Although some complex theories and mathematical draw control systems have been applied in block-cave mines, most of them did not have an exact production rate curve (PRC) to manage draw rates of drawpoints and are too complex to provide a solution for real block-caving mines. This paper presents a mixed-integer linear programming (MILP) model to optimise the extraction sequence of drawpoints over multiple time horizons of block-cave mines with respect to the draw control systems. Four draw rate strategies are formulated to guarantee practical solutions. Furthermore, dilution and caving are improved indirectly, because the method considers the draw rate strategy. Application and comparison of the four models for production scheduling based on draw control systems are presented using 298 drawpoints over 15 periods.

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 score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mining and Mineral EngineeringSame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207