MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064586010 · doi:10.1002/cjce.5450790420

Relationship between the colloidal and rheological properties of mineral suspensions

2001· article· en· W2064586010 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Arisbel Cerpa, Ma. Ximena García‐González, Carlos J. Serna, Pedro Tartaj

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicElectrostatics and Colloid Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIsoelectric pointElectrokinetic phenomenaRheologyChemistryElectrolyteSuspension (topology)Aqueous solutionViscosityColloidGoethiteMagnesiumSilicateAdsorptionSurface chargeChromatographyChemical engineeringInorganic chemistryMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The electrokinetic and rheological behaviour of lateritic aqueous suspensions has been analyzed as a function of samples chemical composition, pH of suspensions, and nature and concentration of electrolyte added to the aqueous suspensions. First, it was determined that the isoelectric point (IEP) of suspensions in the presence of non‐adsorbing electrolytes is a function of the ratio serpentine/ goethite present in samples. The flow properties of the suspensions are strongly dependent on pH, reaching the highest values of apparent viscosity at values around the isoelectric point. Specific adsorption of silicate and magnesium species on particles surface was revealed by a shift in the IEP. In particular, silicate anions shifted the IEP value to acidic pH whilst magnesium cations shifted the value to basic pH. A similar trend was displayed in the rheological behaviour of suspensions where the highest viscosity values were shifted to the same direction.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicElectrostatics and Colloid InteractionsFrench-language works237,207