MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

High Performance Deep Learning GPR Feature Detector Model for Potash Mining

2024· article· en· W4401111305 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kaveh Sadeghikhah, Raman Paranjape, Victor Okonkwo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicGeophysical Methods and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotashGround-penetrating radarComputer scienceFeature (linguistics)Deep learningArtificial intelligenceDetectorFeature extractionMining engineeringGeologyMaterials scienceMetallurgyRadarTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) has been an essential nondestructive geophysical tool in Saskatchewan's potash mines for over six decades. This innovative technology, used in conjunction with an active boring machine, facilitates realtime data collection, particularly for imaging the immediate clay seam (414-clay seam) above the mine roof. Its reliability is demonstrated by the accuracy with which the roof beam thickness (mine roof to 414-clay seam) is interpreted in realtime, crucial for making informed safety decisions during mining operations. The imperative for a robust auto-picking algorithm tailored to handle complexities in potash mine GPR data is emphasized. The previously developed algorithm called the Clustered Ratio Derivative (CRD) algorithm, employing unsupervised machine learning for realtime GPR interpretation showcased promising results. However, the CRD algorithm faces limitations due to potential sensitivity to variations in input data, especially in the presence of noise or anomalies. Geological variations, such as the presence of “stray clays” within the roof beam, pose challenges to the algorithm's performance and accuracy. In response to these challenges, this paper proposes a novel deep learning-based algorithm leveraging two distinct Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) architectures. These CNNs are designed to navigate the intricacies of the GPR data pattern specific to potash mines. The presented results indicate promising levels of accuracy, with the new method achieving 95.4% accuracy in detecting the 414-clay seam and an average of 88% accuracy in finding “stray clays” seen in the dataset when compared to a geophysicist interpretation. The overall analysis suggests that this new approach has the potential to detect mining room roof features with a high degree of accuracy.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicGeophysical Methods and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207