MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020477900 · doi:10.1039/b401899k

Speciation of nickel in Canadian subbituminous and bituminous feed coals, and their ash by-products

2004· article· en· W2020477900 on OpenAlexaffabout
Fariborz Goodarzi, Frank E. Huggins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCoal and Its By-products
Canadian institutionsGeological Survey of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNickelFly ashCoalSulfurChemistryNickel sulfideBituminous coalNickel oxideBottom ashXANESSulfateEnvironmental chemistryMetallurgyInorganic chemistryMaterials scienceSpectroscopyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The nickel species in the feed coals and ash by-products from seven Canadian power plants (including one with a fluidized bed combuster) burning local subbituminous and bituminous coals with sulfur contents ranging from 0.22 to 3.6% have been examined using nickel XANES spectroscopy. XANES spectroscopy of Ni in coal and coal derived ash is complicated by a poor signal : noise ratio due to fluorescence of the much more abundant iron in the coal. Nevertheless, it has proved possible to show that the Ni environment in coals varies from largely oxidic species to mixtures of Ni-containing oxide and sulfide species. The nickel in one oxidized coal appears to be present as nickel sulfate. Nickel in all bottom and fly ash samples examined appears also to be present largely in oxygen anion environments. With the exception of one fly ash sample, for which the Ni exhibited spectral features similar to those for Ni(2+) in spinel or oxide phases, the nickel in the bottom and fly ash samples appears to exist largely as Ni(2+) in environments similar to those reported for Ni in silicate glasses. The data obtained indicate that the presence of potentially carcinogenic nickel sulfides in ash by-products from combustion of these coals is unlikely.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.969

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental MonitoringSame topicCoal and Its By-productsFrench-language works237,207