MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412434885 · doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.113580

Human-AI interaction: Machine learning-based geostatistical hybrid models

2025· article· en· W4412434885 on OpenAlex
Gamze Erdogan Erten, M. A. Karim, Jed Nisenson, Gabriela Brandao, Jeff Boisvert

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Soft Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTime Series Analysis and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Intelligent methods for estimating mineral grades have been developed but some tasks cannot be completely automated through artificial intelligence. Human-in-the-loop (HITL) approaches are being increasingly utilized, where the strengths of both human expertise and artificial intelligence are combined to improve outcomes. This study integrates HITL models with machine learning (ML) based geostatistical hybrid modelling and ensembling approaches for mineral grade estimation and ore sorting. In the hybrid modelling approach, ML models such as an elliptical radial basis neural network (ERBFN), locally weighted support vector regression (LWSVR), kernel density estimated trend (KDET), and a convolutional neural network (CNN) are incorporated as secondary variables within intrinsic collocated cokriging (ICCK). Additionally, the study utilizes two types of ensemble models—global (GWE) and local weighting-based (LWE) ensembles. These ensembles integrate outputs from hybrid models, applying global and local weights based on each model’s cross-validation performance. Depending on their level of expertise, humans are integrated as either (1) novice practitioners considered as human-as-feedback (HAF) systems where they act as model checks and key parameter validators, without the ability to influence ML training or (2) expert practitioners considered as systems where model parameters are actively adjusted, model structures are tuned, and the learning process is guided by human experts. The effectiveness of the HAF and HAC systems is evaluated using data from multiple blast areas obtained from an open-pit copper mine. Compared to fully automated modelling, the HAF system improved estimation accuracy in terms of R 2 values by between 3.6% ( ICCK CNN ) and 5.9% (GWE) across hybrid and ensemble models. Meanwhile, the HAC system demonstrated more significant enhancements, with R 2 values increase ranging from 5.0% ( ICCK CNN ) to 16.5% (GWE) for these same models. This advancement suggests the potential for more precise and effective decision-making in mining operations using HITL systems.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.884

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.250 · 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