MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992190423 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20566

Etude de l'élimination des ions Cu (II) de la solution aqueuse par sorption sur la zéolithe a study of the removal of Cu (II) from aqueous solution by sorption on Zeolite A

2011· article· fr· W1992190423 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kamel Rida, Warda Goutas, Imane Medjetena

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSorptionChemistryNuclear chemistryPhysical chemistryAdsorption

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract L'objectif de cette étude est de présenter les résultats d'élimination du cuivre par le procédé de sorption sur la zéolithe A. Les expériences en batch ont été effectuées aussi bien pour les cinétiques que pour les isothermes de sorption. Les variables expérimentales étudiées étaient le pH, le temps de contact à différentes concentrations initiales, la quantité de sorbant, la température et la vitesse d'agitation. La capacité de sorption dépend du pH et de la masse de sorbant, alors que la température et la vitesse d'agitation ne montrent aucune influence. Plusieurs mécanismes de rétention du cuivre sur la zéolithe pourraient être compétitifs (échange d'ions, complexation ou précipitation et sorption). La modélisation des données expérimentales relatives aux cinétiques a montré que le modèle de pseudo‐second ordre décrit d'une façon satisfaisante la sorption sur la zéolithe, et que l'étape limitante de la vitesse est la diffusion intraparticule. L'analyse statistique des constantes relatives a l'équation de Langmuir‐Freundlich a montré que ce modèle semble être le plus approprié pour décrire le présent phénomène de sorption, ce qui indique l'hétérogénéité de la surface de sorption de la zéolithe. © 2011 Canadian Society for Chemical Engineering

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207