Grade control drillhole spacing and mining selectivity determination using high resolution simulations applied on distinctly heterogeneous open pit mines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The grade control drillhole spacing and mining selectivity decisions are typically made using the resource model estimated from exploration and infill drilling data. Once production starts, large quantities of grade control data are collected to delineate ore and waste boundaries for ore control. In this work, a grade control drillhole spacing and mining selectivity optimization workflow is presented which allows the practitioner to use site specific knowledge to determine the most profitable ore control mining scenario. The densely gridded production data is used to simulate a ground truth block model from which scenarios of variable drillhole spacing and selectivity are evaluated against their corresponding costs to determine the maximum profit scenario. Eleven mining scenarios are evaluated using year production data from three distinctly heterogeneous mine with drillhole spacing and mining selectivity varying from 3 × 3 × 3 m (27 m 3 ) to 30 × 30 × 15 m (13,500 m 3 ). The profit differences from the optimum scenario varied by millions of dollars (1–8%) against the next best case depending on the heterogeneity of the deposit. Practitioners could apply this workflow to inform grade control drillhole spacing and mining selectivity decisions for different domains within the mine or multiple pits especially if distinctly heterogeneous volumes exist.
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 | 0.001 | 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".