MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069697786 · doi:10.1179/174327508x324798

Uranium exploration and production: a review of innovation

2008· review· en· W2069697786 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martin Hedges

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Earth Science Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section B · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUraniumProduction (economics)Natural resource economicsBusinessPaper productionEnriched uraniumEnvironmental scienceEngineeringEconomicsNuclear physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapidly rising demand for nuclear energy worldwide, innovation in exploration techniques and production of uranium will become increasingly more important as demand begins to outstrip supply. Uranium production levels over time are reflected historically in the volume of innovations in the uranium industry as represented by the patent literature. Innovation peaked during the 1980s, when inventions originating largely from the United States and Canada dominated the patent landscape. Research into uranium dramatically decreased throughout the 1990s, with the number of patents falling by an order of magnitude. However, since the start of the new millennium there has been a steady recovery in both production and innovations with the total number of each already exceeding that of the 1990s. In recent years, Russia has been the leader in published innovative research and development in uranium exploration and production. The key area of interest is in improved hydrometallurgical techniques, principally those relating to in situ leaching and ion exchange recovery, including resin-in-pulp processes. This trend is likely to continue with Australia expected to make a greater contribution to future innovations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.898
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Earth Science Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy Section BSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207