MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1495472409 · doi:10.4236/jmmce.2011.1012085

Development and Calibration of a Quantitative, Automated Mineralogical Assessment Method Based on SEM-EDS and Image Analysis: Application for Fine Tailings

2011· article· en· W1495472409 on OpenAlex

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

VenueJournal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsAgnico Eagle (Canada)Université du Québec en Abitibi-TémiscamingueCentre Technologique des Résidus IndustrielsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTailingsCalibrationEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyMaterials scienceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantitative mineralogy has seen significant developments from the combination of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) with automatic image analysis and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDS). The mining industry is one of the fields that has benefited from this progress. In this paper, the authors present a newly developed quantitative method based on SEM-EDS and image analysis (IA), which is used to determine the mineralogical and environmental characteristics of mine tailings. The main objectives of the method are to be able to characterize sulphides and carbonates as monomineral particles, which control the acid generation from the tailings. Pure sulphides, calcite and quartz were blended to make mineralogical standards that represent typical mine tailings environmental behavior. The SEM-EDS-IA method achieved good mineralogical precision for medium (1-20 Wt%) and abundant (> 20 Wt%) minerals, with a relative error below 10 %. However, some corrections had to be applied to account for typical stereological effects (apparent particle diameter from polished surface) and preparation modes (particle segregation during resin hardening). Particle size analysis was used to calibrate the method and identify the corrections to be applied. Since mineralogical quantifications are based on the area of the observed particles, the most reliable particle size analyses (also obtained from particle area) typically lead to the best mineralogical characterization. However, the SEM based techniques may show some limitations for fine-grained particle quantification (< 10 m), which required additional corrections. In this article, the technique is described, and it is applied to characterize fine-grained mine tailings with a size-by-size mineralogy (with

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.895
Threshold uncertainty score0.455

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.271
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