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 OpenAlex
Bruce W. Downing, Frank G. A. de Bakker

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.678
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

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 head0.016
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