Choice of access for underground mining for feasibility studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents a review of the methodology for choosing the type of access and exploitation methodology for underground mines, being the choice of the type of access, one of the initial stages of the conceptual projects. To this end, in addition to literature verification, technical feasibility reports of recent projects were analyzed, made available by mining companies listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange. In this report, data were extracted referring to technical and productive characteristics of the projects, thus allowing comparison with classic methodologies for the choice of types of access and the compilation of a new flowchart, adhered to the current mining industry. The data from the projects were separated considering the mining methods with the largest number of samples, as well as the productive and mineral deposit characteristics. As a result, a chart is presented for the choice of access and mining method as a function of productive characteristics, ore body geometry and rock mass quality. Updating the limits considered for depth and daily production corresponded to a significant improvement in the response of the suggested access type and made it compatible with that presented in the feasibility projects.
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 | 0.005 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.008 |
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".