MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013403791 · doi:10.3166/acsm.32.55-68

Contribution à létude physico chimique et minéralogique des argiles de Mayouom (Cameroun)

2007· article· fr· W2013403791 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
D. Njoya, Antoine Elimbi, Charles Nkoumbou, André Njoya, Daniel Njopwouo, Gilles Lecomte, Jacques Yvon

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2007
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeological and Geophysical Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cinq echantillons de materiaux argileux denommes MY 1 , MY 2 , MY 3 , MY 4 et MY 5 , provenant du gisement argileux de Mayouom (departement du Noun, Province de l'Ouest) ont fait l'objet d'etudes granulometriques, chimiques et mineralogiques. Ces materiaux argileux sont faiblement colores et sont constitues de particules dont la fraction limoneuse est predominante. La kaolinite est leur mineral majoritaire (48-80 %). A ce dernier mineral sont associes l'illite (3-8 %), le quartz dont la teneur est elevee dans MY 1 , MY 2 , MY 4 et MY 5 (> 30 %), l'anatase (< 5 %), l'hydroxyapatite de baryum et de strontium (0-1 %), l'hematite dans MY 3 (environ 1 %) et des traces de ce dernier mineral dans MY 2 et MY 4 . Ces argiles sont exemptes d'elements toxiques (antimoine, arsenic, cadmium, bismuth). Leur composition mineralogique les predispose a des utilisations en ceramique telles que porcelaines, vitreous (produits vitrifies pour sanitaires), emaux apres lavage et elimination du quartz. Toutefois, l'echantillon MY 3 , plastique et riche en kaolinite et illite, conviendrait a l'elaboration des gres ceramiques.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicGeological and Geophysical Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207