Ore-Waste Discrimination Using Supervised and Unsupervised Classification of Hyperspectral Images
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ore and waste discrimination is essential for optimizing exploitation and minimizing ore dilution in a mining operation. The conventional ore/waste discrimination approach relies on the interpretation of ore control by geologists, which is subjective, time-consuming, and can cause safety hazards. Hyperspectral remote sensing can be used as an alternative approach for ore/waste discrimination. The focus of this study is to investigate the application of hyperspectral remote sensing and deep learning (DL) for real-time ore and waste classification. Hyperspectral images of several meters of drill core samples from a silver ore deposit labeled by a site geologist as ore and waste material were used to train and test the models. A DL model was trained on the labels generated by a spectral angle mapper (SAM) machine learning technique. The performance on ore/waste discrimination of three classifiers (supervised DL and SAM, and unsupervised k-means clustering) was evaluated using Rand Error and Pixel Error as disagreement analysis and accuracy assessment indices. The results showed that the DL method outperformed the other two techniques. The performance of the DL model reached 0.89, 0.95, 0.89, and 0.91, respectively, on overall accuracy, precision, recall, and F1 score, which indicate the strong capability of the DL model in ore and waste discrimination. An integrated hyperspectral imaging and DL technique has strong potential to be used for practical and efficient discrimination of ore and waste in a near real-time manner.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".