MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292696703 · doi:10.19044/esj.2022.v8n0p181

A Goal Programming Model for Dispatching Trucks in an Underground Gold Mine

2022· article· en· W4292696703 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Scientific Journal ESJ · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOptimization and Mathematical Programming
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTruckFlexibility (engineering)Goal programmingUnderground mining (soft rock)Operations researchProgramming paradigmComputer scienceGold miningEngineeringCoal miningWaste managementEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The cost of transporting mined material in an underground mine is major. This cost typically represents between 50 to 60 percent of a mine’s total operating costs. The problem of dispatching trucks in an underground gold mine is, therefore, of major economic importance and warrants the use of a decision support model. The developments of a realistic decision-support model for the dispatching problem in an underground gold mine is addressed in this paper. The problem must address multiple conflicting objectives and therefore a goal programming model was formulated. The model was applied to a case study, the Red Lake underground gold mine, in Ontario, Canada. The results showed major improvements in meeting the multiple objectives of this problem versus a single objective model. The results illustrate the flexibility that the dispatching problem (in underground gold mines) yields when solved for multiple objectives using a goal programming model.

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.

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)0.002
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 score0.617
Threshold uncertainty score0.705

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.229 · 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