MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408507067 · doi:10.3390/min15030311

Joint Modeling of Floor Elevations and Thickness of a Bauxite Unit Considering Trend, Histogram and Variogram Uncertainty

2025· article· en· W4408507067 on OpenAlexaff
Oktay Erten, Clayton V. Deutsch

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBauxite Residue and Utilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBauxiteVariogramJoint (building)HistogramUnit (ring theory)GeologyEnvironmental scienceSoil scienceStatisticsMining engineeringMathematicsComputer scienceKrigingArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceEngineeringImage (mathematics)Structural engineeringMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Laterite-type bauxite deposits typically exhibit a highly irregular boundary between the bauxite and underlying ferricrete units. This irregularity cannot be accurately modeled using data collected from sparsely spaced drillholes (e.g., 76.2×76.2 m or 250×250 ft). Geological models that assume a sharp and nearly horizontal bauxite/ferricrete contact can result in significant errors when calculating the in situ bauxite resource (in volume) and in misclassifying ore and waste during mining operations. Two primary sources of uncertainty must be addressed when modeling lateritic bauxite deposits: (1) grade uncertainty associated with variations in Al2O3 and SiO2% concentrations, and (2) geometric uncertainty related to lateral variations in the bauxite/ferricrete contact. Among these, geometric uncertainty is more critical, as accurately estimating bauxite ore tonnage depends on the precise modeling of the lateral variation in the boundary between the bauxite and underlying ferricrete units. This study evaluates the uncertainty of the bauxite resource within a selected mine area in northern Queensland, Australia, particularly in cases where experimental data are sparse and limited. To address this, the position variable (bauxite floor elevations) and the thickness of the bauxite unit are jointly simulated under two scenarios. In the first scenario, the histograms, variogram model parameters, and the estimated trend of the variables of interest are assumed to be known with certainty; that is, parameter uncertainty is not considered in the modeling process. In the second scenario, the histograms, variogram model parameters, and the estimated trend are considered uncertain, and parameter uncertainty is explicitly incorporated into the modeling process using the multivariate spatial bootstrap procedure. The methodology is applied to both scenarios, showing that incorporating parameter uncertainty in geostatistical modeling results in greater dispersion of the uncertainty associated with the in situ bauxite resource. The results show that the 95% confidence intervals for the in situ bauxite ore volume, derived from bauxite thickness realizations, vary depending on whether parameter uncertainty is considered. When parameter uncertainty is incorporated, the interval is (390,123 m3 and 393,223 m3), whereas without parameter uncertainty, it is (382,332 m3 and 384,373 m3). This comparison highlights that incorporating parameter uncertainty provides a more realistic assessment of resource risk in the modeling process.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.391

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.217 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicBauxite Residue and UtilizationFrench-language works237,207