Mineralogical Characterization of Sieved and Un-Sieved Samples
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mineralogical characterization applied to mineral processing is now widespread. The first step for a mineralogi- cal characterization study is usually size fractionation. Preparation of polished sections is done on size fractions to reduce complications in making representative cross sections of particles with large size differences. A sample is commonly fractionated into five or six size intervals. The drawback of this procedure is that it makes liberation studies more expensive, because one sample actually produces five or six sub-samples that need to be studied, i.e. one from each size interval. Thus to reduce cost of liberation studies, it would be desirable to study the un-sized sample. This paper provides a comparative liberation study of a set of samples both using size fractions and using the un-sized samples. The samples studied are the feed, the concentrate and the tails of a lead rougher flotation circuit. The results consistently show significant differences between the sized and the un-sized samples. Nevertheless, the results indicate that un-corrected liberation data from un-sized samples can be used for comparative studies that involve several related samples. Thus, it is possible to improve (or further understand) a concentrator circuit by using mineralogical data from un-sized samples around such circuit.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it