MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027665313 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20251

Separation of cadmium(II) from spent nickel/cadmium battery by emulsion liquid membrane

2010· article· en· W2027665313 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadmiumPhosphoric acidDiluentSulfuric acidChemistryNickelEmulsionMembraneLeaching (pedology)Inorganic chemistryChromatographyNuclear chemistryOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Experiments were conducted to investigate the separation of cadmium(II) from spent nickel/cadmium battery by emulsion liquid membrane. Liquid membrane mainly consisted of a diluent (kerosene), a surfactant (Span 80), a carrier (di(2‐ethylhexyl) phosphoric acid, D2EHPA) and an internal phase (sulfuric acid). Main research effort was focused on the identification of optimal parameters affecting the separation process, such as D2EHPA (4.4 vol%), Span 80 (6.6 vol%), pH in the external phase (3.0), treat ratio (0.4), agitation time (10 min), and sulfuric acid concentration (1500 mol / m 3 ). With the selected emulsion liquid membrane to separate cadmium(II) from the leaching solution of spent nickel/cadmium battery, the fraction extracted of cadmium(II) ions (0.963) was much more than that of nickel(II) ions (0.026). The organic membrane phase after demulsification was re‐mulsification and recycled up to eight times.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.472

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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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