MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385799479 · doi:10.17159/2411-9717/2770/2023

Predicting open stope performance at an octree resolution using multivariate models

2023· article· en· W4385799479 on OpenAlexafffund
Benoît McFadyen, Martin Grenon, Karen Woodward, Yves Potvin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersIAMGOLDMinerals Research Institute of Western Australia
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsChartStability (learning theory)Computer scienceEngineeringMining engineeringStatisticsMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Open stoping has become a popular mining method in hard rock mines, not only due to the safety of the method as a non-entry approach, but also because of the high extraction rate and low costs. At mine sites, stope performance is evaluated by calculating stope overbreak using the stability chart. However, limitations of the stability chart regarding the precision of the predictions, non-consideration of factors such as the influence of blasting, and the exclusion of underbreak have led to non-optimal designs. The capabilities of today's computers have increased the amount of data being collected and the power of models being built. This article presents a step towards a new stope design approach where stope overbreak and underbreak are measured and georeferenced using octrees at an approximately cubic metre resolution and predicted using multivariate statistical models (partial least square, linear discriminant analysis, and random forest). Results show that overbreak and underbreak location along the design surface and their magnitude are predicted with good precision using a random forest model. These predictions are used to build the expected geometry of the open stope. The resolution of the data and the use of multivariate analysis has enabled the prediction of variation in stope performance along the design surface, going well beyond the simple qualitative per stope face prediction provided by a traditional stability chart approach. Keywords: stope design, stope reconciliation, overbreak, underbreak, multivariate, prediction, random forest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Southern African Institute of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207