MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409300144 · doi:10.3390/geosciences15040140

Understanding Secondary Fragmentation Characteristics in Cave Mining: A Simulation-Based Analysis of Impact and Compression-Induced Breakage

2025· article· en· W4409300144 on OpenAlexafffund
Yalin Li, Davide Elmo

Bibliographic record

VenueGeosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsNewmont Corporation
KeywordsBreakageFragmentation (computing)CaveCompression (physics)Mining engineeringComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeologyMaterials scienceArchaeologyWorld Wide WebComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the characteristics of secondary fragmentation and fines generation in cave mining through DEM simulations. The objective is not to develop a tool for accurately estimating fragmentation observed at drawpoints. Instead, the research focuses on an improved understanding of the impact of critical parameters (tensile strength, damping coefficients, and micro-defects) on secondary fragmentation characteristics. Attempting to predict outcomes without first comprehending the underlying mechanisms risks oversimplifying complex mine-scale conditions. The analysis shows that tensile failure is the dominant mechanism governing fragmentation. Size-distribution curves of fragmented blocks under impact breakage demonstrate a concave-up exponential relationship between percentage mass passing at 1/10th of the original size (t10) and kinetic energy. Furthermore, the analysis of compression-induced breakage highlights the significant role of tensile strength and micro-defects in determining the extent of fragmentation under different conditions. By better understanding these underlying mechanisms, the research establishes a solid foundation for predicting fines generation and ultimately enhancing decision making and operational strategies in mining.

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 score0.028
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeosciencesSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207