MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411657571 · doi:10.1177/25726668251348712

Dynamic multi-period mixed-integer non-linear programming model for equipment selection in the mining industry

2025· article· en· W4411657571 on OpenAlexafffund
Sena Şenses, Mustafa Kumral

Bibliographic record

VenueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining Techniques and Economics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInteger programmingSelection (genetic algorithm)Period (music)Computer scienceLinear programmingInteger (computer science)Operations researchEngineeringArtificial intelligenceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Planning an equipment fleet is a complex engineering challenge involving (1) the capacity selection of equipment pieces forming a fleet, (2) the determination of fleet size, (3) strategic timing of equipment acquisitions, and (4) ensuring compatibility between interconnected equipment. Selecting equipment type involves evaluating capacity to meet production requirements effectively while considering operational constraints. It also requires determining the optimal number of units to avoid underutilisation or redundancy. In multi-period projects, the timing of equipment acquisition further adds complexity, as decisions must align with production rates that evolve over time. Moreover, matching equipment types is essential to ensure smooth and efficient workflows. This study develops a dynamic multi-period mixed-integer non-linear programming model to optimise equipment selection, considering capital recovery, operating costs, and equipment availability under match factor and production constraints. The model's effectiveness is demonstrated through a case study encompassing greenfield and brownfield scenarios in open-pit mining operations. The greenfield scenario emphasises phased equipment acquisition to align with production ramp-up and minimising initial costs. The brownfield scenario addresses the integration of aging and new equipment to sustain operational efficiency. The results highlight the model's flexibility and applicability, offering a robust tool for optimising equipment selection while balancing cost and performance.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMining Technology Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and MetallurgySame topicMining Techniques and EconomicsFrench-language works237,207