MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408557526 · doi:10.1177/25726668251323986

Data driven block discretisation method for predicting the bulk ore sorting benefits applied at distinctly heterogeneous open pit mines

2025· article· en· W4408557526 on OpenAlexaff
Fouad Faraj, Julián M. Ortíz, Jose Arnal

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlock (permutation group theory)SortingOpen-pit miningDiscretizationBlock modelMining engineeringGeologyComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent mining technology innovations such as robust shovel bucket mounted sensors allow ore grades to be measured at the mine face for every scoop and truck during extraction. There are currently limited established methods for estimating the ore control benefits of enhancing mining selectivity at a given deposit. A discretisation method is presented using blasthole grades where a selective mining unit block is first discretised to truck or shovel bucket sized subblocks. Subblock grades are assumed to follow a distribution with the same average grade as the host block and the variance scaled from locally surrounding blastholes. The ore control benefits are quantified by comparing the ore and waste grade tonnage of the coarser original blocks to the more selective subblocks. The discretisation methodology is applied reducing the selective mining unit on 2 months of production data from three distinctly heterogeneous open pit mines. Discretising to truck sized blocks resulted in a 10–30% decrease in dilution and ore loss depending on the coefficient of variation, strip ratio, average grades above and below cut-off, and spatial continuity. Operational considerations for bulk ore sorting are provided as productivity could be impacted as a tradeoff for the enhanced selectivity.

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 score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207