MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068603336 · doi:10.1680/jees.2013.0022

Traitement et stabilisation chimique de déchets d’aluminerie contaminés en ions fluorures (in French)

2013· article· fr· W2068603336 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ghislain Bongo, Guy Mercier, Patrick Drogui, Jean‐François Blais

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryNuclear chemistryHumanitiesPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Les déchets d’aluminerie sont contaminés par les ions fluorures. Ils contiennent entre 2 et 323 g F−/kg. L’application du test de TCLP (« toxicity characteristics leaching procedure ») les définit comme matière résiduelle dangereuse face à la limite réglementaire imposée par le ministère du Développement Durable de l’Environnement et des Parcs (MDDEP) du Québec (<150 mg F−/L). L’extraction des ions fluorures par des étapes de lixiviations successives en milieu acide (H2SO4, pH 1,5), a permis d’obtenir un taux d’enlèvement maximal de 33 % (m/m). La lixiviation acide n’est pas suffisante pour atteindre la norme recommandée (TCLP < 150 mg F−/L) et ce, quelle que soit la concentration en solides totaux (1 % à 16 %) utilisée lors du traitement. La stabilisation chimique préalable à l’aide de Ca(OH)2 employée à une concentration variant entre 10 et 12 g/L, dans une suspension de résidus EC (100 g/L), a donné des TCLP à 110 et 115 mg F−/L. Il a été possible de précipiter 98 % des ions F− du lixiviat par abaissement du pH de 11,9 à des valeurs comprises entre 7,0 et 8,5 avec H2SO4, 10 mol/L.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.209
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

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 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207