MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054737847 · doi:10.1179/000844311x552269

The mineralogy of pyrrhotite from Sudbury CCN and Phoenix nickel ores and its effect on flotation performance

2011· article· en· W2054737847 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Megan Becker, D. Bradshaw, Johan de Villiers

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Metallurgical Quarterly · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrrhotiteNickelMineralogyXanthateChemistryGeologyPentlanditePyriteInorganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The non‐stoichiometric sulphide pyrrhotite (Fe1−xS), common to many nickel ores, occurs in a variety of crystallographic forms and compositions. In order to manipulate its performance in nickel processing operations either to target the recovery or rejection or pyrrhotite, one needs an understanding of pyrrhotite mineralogy, reactivity and the effect this may have on its flotation performance. In this study, a non‐magnetic Fe9S10 pyrrhotite from Sudbury CCN in Canada and a magnetic Fe7S8 pyrrhotite from Phoenix in Botswana were selected to explore the relationship between mineralogy, reactivity and microflotation. Non‐magnetic Sudbury pyrrhotite was less reactive in terms of its oxygen uptake and showed the best collectorless flotation recovery. Magnetic Phoenix pyrrhotite was more reactive and showed poor collectorless flotation, which was significantly improved with the addition of xanthate and copper activation. These differences in reactivity and flotation performance are interpreted to be a result of the pyrrhotite mineralogy, the implications of which may aid in the manipulation of flotation performance.La pyrrhotine sulfureuse non stoechiométrique (Fe1−xS), commune à plusieurs minerais de nickel, se retrouve sous une variété de formes cristallographiques et de compositions. Afin de manipuler son rendement lors des opérations de traitement du nickel, soit afin de viser la récupération ou bien la rejection de la pyrrhotine, on a besoin de comprendre la minéralogie de la pyrrhotine, sa réactivité et leur effet sur le rendement de sa flottation. Dans cette étude, on a choisi une pyrrhotine non magnétique, Fe9S10, de Sudbury CCN au Canada et une pyrrhotine magnétique, Fe7S8, de Phoenix au Botswana, pour explorer la relation entre la minéralogie, la réactivité et la microflottation. La pyrrhotine non magnétique de Sudbury était moins réactive par rapport à son absorption d'oxygène et a montré la meilleure récupération par flottation sans collecteur. La pyrrhotine magnétique de Phoenix était plus réactive et a montré une mauvaise flottation sans collecteur, que l'on a améliorée significativement avec l'addition de xanthate et l'activation au cuivre. Ces différences de réactivité et de rendement de la flottation sont interprétées comme étant un résultat de la minéralogie de la pyrrhotine, dont les implications peuvent aider à manipuler le rendement de la flottation.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.852
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations19
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Metallurgical QuarterlySame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207