MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125784865 · doi:10.26634/jfet.20.4.22188

The evolution of AI-based maintenance in gold processing mills

2025· article· en· W7125784865 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Victoria Makuwaza Ruvimbo

Bibliographic record

Venuei-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering and Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDowntimeMillPredictive maintenanceEmerging technologiesPreventive maintenanceKey (lock)Condition-based maintenance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AI-driven predictive maintenance has transformed gold processing operations by moving maintenance strategies from reactive schedules to data-driven prognostics. Advanced algorithms and platforms such as machine learning, deep learning, computer vision, IoT, and digital twins now analyze real-time sensor data to detect emerging faults days or weeks before failures occur. These technologies have been deployed globally, from Australia's Newcrest mining IoT platform to Chinese gold company Shandong Mining's smart conveyors to South African ball mill monitoring, yielding significant benefits. For instance, AI interventions at a gold mill in South Africa averted a motor failure that traditional vibration monitoring missed, while a U.S.-IoT-enabled “soft sensor” at an Australian gold operation cut unplanned downtime with a payback under three months. Across projects, maintenance costs have fallen by double-digit percentages and downtime by over 50%. This paper reviews the global evolution and trends of AI-based maintenance in gold mills, surveys key AI technologies (AI/ML, computer vision, expert systems, IoT, and digital twins), presents case studies from Australia, South Africa, Canada, and China, and discusses challenges, return-on-investment (ROI), and future directions such as expanded edge AI and digital twin integration.

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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.506

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 venuei-manager’s Journal on Future Engineering and TechnologySame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207