MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406415227 · doi:10.1080/19236026.2024.2430154

Some basic improvements in mineral resource estimation and reporting

2025· article· en· W4406415227 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce W. Downing, Frank G. A. de Bakker

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsCermaq (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorDilutionPorosityResource (disambiguation)EstimationDensity estimationMineral resource classificationMineralogyBulk densityEnvironmental scienceGeologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsSoil scienceGeochemistryEngineeringThermodynamicsPhysicsGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bulk density miscalculations and subsequent reporting can produce resource estimation errors and unexpected financial outcomes. Density and bulk density vary throughout a mineral deposit, especially in porous deposits and deposits containing variable amounts of high-density minerals (e.g., barite). Resource estimators must correlate bulk density with core recovery and apply quality assurance/quality control analysis to bulk density data. Core recovery is an important factor in resource estimation and reporting. Block tonnages (ore and waste) are estimated from volumes using a dry bulk density value. Ore dilution is a volumetric effect integral to ore reserve estimation that also has the potential to affect the economics of mining a deposit. Both the bulk density and dilution problems could be overcome by reporting a mineral resource estimate in grade per unit volume.

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)0.047
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.110
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.249

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0470.110
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.008
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0070.003
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0550.045

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCIM JournalSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207