ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluation method of ore grade estimation effectiveness.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study proposes a new method to evaluate the effectiveness of orebody grade estimations, drawing upon the analysis of existing evaluation methods for grade estimation. This new approach addresses factors such as uneven sampling and asymmetric estimation range, which are challenging to overcome with existing evaluation techniques. The core principle of this method involves documenting how frequently individual samples are used during grade estimation and calculating the total distance weights for each sample. Subsequently, the usage frequency and total weight of the samples are standardized, and these standardized values are weighted based on the sample grades. A comparison is made between the weighted sample grades and the estimated grades, with the closeness between the two serving as a metric for assessing the effectiveness of the estimation. This study compares the new evaluation method to the direct comparison and cross-validation methods, examining the effectiveness of grade estimation using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method. The findings revealed that: (1) The new evaluation method theoretically accounts for the systematic deviation between the statistical measures of estimated and sample grades resulting from uneven sample distribution, offering a fresh approach for enhancing the effectiveness of orebody grade estimation. (2) In the grade estimation of experimental Fe samples, the frequency of usage and the sum of distance weights were unequal. This inequality significantly contributes to the systematic deviation between the estimated and sample grades. (3) Comparing the new evaluation method to others confirms the stability and reliability of the new approach for evaluating the effectiveness of orebody grade estimation. This novel method demonstrates theoretical advantages and practical utility. (4) The deviation between the estimated grades and the statistical results of sample grades is influenced by the distribution pattern of sample grades, the spatial relationship between samples and estimation blocks, and the inherent systematic error associated with the IDW method. This systematic error cannot be overlooked.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.