2020
DOI: 10.1007/s11053-020-09674-8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A New Semi-greedy Approach to Enhance Drillhole Planning

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In the past decades, many other geostatistical objective functions have been proposed as an alternative to the kriging variance for optimal sampling design, such as the weighted kriging variance [26][27][28], interpolation variance [29][30][31], combined variance [31][32][33], conditional variance [34], information entropy [31,35], value of information [36], efficacy of information [37], GET (grade-estimation error-thickness) function [10,38], cross-validation error [39], interquartile range [40], probability interval widths [34,41], probability of classification error [42], probability of threshold exceedance [43], expected ore value [44], expected cost of classification errors [45], or increase of indicated and measured mineral resource categories [46]. These objective functions account for local ore grade variability, expected grade, expected productivity, expected profit, and/or reduction of uncertainty, unlike the kriging variance that only depends on the spatial correlation (variogram) and geometric configuration of the data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the past decades, many other geostatistical objective functions have been proposed as an alternative to the kriging variance for optimal sampling design, such as the weighted kriging variance [26][27][28], interpolation variance [29][30][31], combined variance [31][32][33], conditional variance [34], information entropy [31,35], value of information [36], efficacy of information [37], GET (grade-estimation error-thickness) function [10,38], cross-validation error [39], interquartile range [40], probability interval widths [34,41], probability of classification error [42], probability of threshold exceedance [43], expected ore value [44], expected cost of classification errors [45], or increase of indicated and measured mineral resource categories [46]. These objective functions account for local ore grade variability, expected grade, expected productivity, expected profit, and/or reduction of uncertainty, unlike the kriging variance that only depends on the spatial correlation (variogram) and geometric configuration of the data.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Geostatistical techniques assume stationarity assumptions and normalised data before conditional simulations [2,[9][10][11]. Data for spatial estimation in the geoscience domain is obtained mostly through scarce and costly drilling methods [12][13][14][15]; therefore, robust MLAs must be explored. Real-time decision-making, particularly the demand for automation in various industries, requires efficient and less time-consuming spatial estimation models [16,17].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several studies were made considering the kriging variance as a guide to locate infill sampling. Examples of those studies are: Szidarovszky (1983); Gershon (1987); Groenigen et alli (1999); Delmelle & Goovaerts (2009); Wilde (2009); Soltani et alli (2011);Mohammadi et alli (2012); Silva & Boisvert (2013); Soltani & Hezarkhani (2013); Dutaut & Marcotte (2020). Those works differ from each other by the optimization algorithm utilized or the application of the kriging variance as the objective function, that can be considered alone, be averaged in the domain, weighted, with the estimated value, and others.…”
Section: -Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%