Gold Cementation from Ammonium Thiosulfate Solution by Zinc, Copper and Aluminium Powders
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
Gold cementation test was conducted without de-aeration by using zinc, copper and aluminium powders from an ammonium thiosulfate solution contained 8 mg/l Au. The amount of metal powder was varied in the range of 30–450 Metal/Gold mass ratio. The solution composition was 1–5 mol/l NH4OH, 0.01–0.05 mol/l CuSO4∗5H2O, 0.2–0.4 mol/l (NH4)2S2O3 and pH 9.5–10.5. The results indicated that the gold was effectively recovered from a solution of lower ammonia and copper concentrations and higher thiosulfate concentration. The optimum reagent composition for the gold cementation from the ammonium thiosulfate solution was founded to be 1 mol/l NH4OH, 0.01 mol/l CuSO4∗5H2O and 0.4 mol/l (NH4)2S2O3 at pH 9.5. 100% of gold was recovered by zinc and aluminium powders at a Metal/Gold mass ratio of 30. Copper powder recovered 93% of gold at a Metal/Gold mass ratio of 50. Zinc might re-generate thiosulfate concentration and precipitate most of copper in the solution. Aluminium precipitation might recover gold with less amount of copper deposition and some thiosulfate reduction. Copper precipitation reduced a small amount of thiosulfate concentration and greatly increased copper concentration. Ammonia concentration stayed constant during cementation process.
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) | 0.002 | 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