MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7081979561 · doi:10.11159/mmme25.133

Meta-Model Development for Mine-to-Mill Optimisation Using AI and Simulation

2025· article· en· W7081979561 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAustralian Government
KeywordsDevelopment (topology)Process (computing)Field (mathematics)AutomationKey (lock)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current demand for mineral resources is higher than it has ever been, and it is expected that, over time, the quality of future resources will decline, and they will become more difficult to extract.Routinely collected on-site data from various mining stages are often neglected in mining operations and are not being used to improve the value of the mining chain.To address this issue, mining companies need to increase the efficiency of their mining processes to achieve sustainable production by using innovative solutions.The primary purpose of the study presented here is to develop an integrated knowledge-based system using advanced AI techniques to simulate, monitor, assess, and optimise mining processes from blasting to downstream products.In this study, publicly available data from the Barrick Cortez Mine in Nevada, USA, was used to model the entire mining process from blasting to SAG mill by using Orica's Integrated Extraction Simulator (IES) platform.The comparison of real data from the mining site with simulated data on the IES platform demonstrates that the modelled operations closely match the real data.Thirteen parameters related to blasting, screens, crusher, and SAG mill were considered.Given the computational infeasibility of testing all combinations, three million scenarios were simulated to identify key performance drivers.Machine learning models-including linear regression, decision trees, random forest, and XGBoost-were evaluated to determine the most effective for predicting outcomes.The next step involved using input scenarios and outcomes to investigate key features and interpret results using feature importance and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) techniques, respectively, as powerful tools for determining the influence of individual features of the models.The findings highlight the potential of AI-driven meta-models to enhance decision-making, reduce operational costs, and improve resource usage in mining operations.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering→Same topicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping→French-language works237,207→