MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2052558570 · doi:10.1002/cjce.20278

Mixing intensification for the mineral industry

2010· article· en· W2052558570 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
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSlurryMineral processingMixing (physics)BaffleAgitatorLeaching (pedology)Environmental scienceMineralBauxiteMetallurgyProcess engineeringWaste managementMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineeringEngineeringImpellerChemical engineeringMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The modern mineral industry uses hydrometallurgical processes to extract metals from ores. Typically, a large volume of ore slurry is treated in mixing tanks in a mineral processing plant, for leaching, digestion, precipitation, and other chemical processing to obtain pure metals or concentrated ores. This paper discusses mixing intensification as a means to achieve process intensification for the mineral process industry. Areas where mixing intensification can be applied are illustrated with case examples. Among them, it was suggested that for slowly reacting slurry systems typical in the mineral processing operations, high solid loadings should be considered to boost throughput. Improved agitator energy efficiency can be achieved by removing baffles, at very high solid loadings. Slurry stratification in tanks can be used to boost either solids residence time or slurry through flow.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score0.458

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.188 · 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