MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062571705 · doi:10.1179/174328509x431427

Piloting the Australian magnesium process

2009· article· en· W2062571705 on OpenAlexaff
David H. Jenkins, G. J. Sheehan, M. T. Frost

Bibliographic record

VenueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section C · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsHatch (Canada)
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsMagnesiumPilot plantScale (ratio)EngineeringEnvironmental scienceProcess (computing)Waste managementMetallurgyComputer scienceMaterials scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the piloting process that was behind Australian Magnesium Corporation Limited decision to build a 97 000 t per annum magnesium smelter near Rockhampton in Queensland, Australia in 2001.Before the engineering design for this smelter, Australian Magnesium Corporation Ltd had completed an extensive piloting program. This involved a batch minipilot plant in 1993 which was followed by a continuous minipilot plant which operated for eight months in 1994. Finally, a 1500 t per annum demonstration plant was built and operated at Gladstone in Queensland between 1998 and 2002. The minipilot plants assessed the stability of the chemicals used in the process, the solvent losses, the crystallisation yields and also tested the viability of operations previously only tested on a laboratory scale. The demonstration plant was designed to evaluate the complete integration of the process, assess the effectiveness of the selected industrial scale equipment and materials of construction while providing information for a bankable feasibility study.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.608

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section CSame topicMinerals Flotation and Separation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207