MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074645572 · doi:10.1080/19392690902784846

Effect of Flotation on Preparation of Coal-Water Slurries

2009· article· en· W2074645572 on OpenAlexaff
Kejian Ding, J. Laskowski

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Coal Preparation and Utilization · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCoal Combustion and Slurry Processing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTailingsSlurryCoalFroth flotationBituminous coalCoal waterWaste managementDiesel fuelDispersantPulp and paper industryChemistryCoal slurryCoal preparation plantClean coalReagentEnvironmental scienceMetallurgyMaterials scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to study the effect of flotation reagents on the properties of coal-water slurry, a sub-bituminous coal was cleaned via either forward flotation or reverse flotation. The froth product from the forward flotation, obtained with the use of diesel oil and MIBC, and the tailings of the reverse flotation, carried out with dextrin-tannic acid depressants and dodecyltrimethylammonium chloride collector, were used in the preparation of coal-water slurries. It was shown that while it was possible to obtain the coal-water slurry with a high-solids content from the coal rendered hydrophilic (tailings from the coal reverse flotation), in the case of the hydrophobic product (froth product from the forward flotation) a dispersing agent was required to obtain the coal-water slurry of the same high-solids content.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.309 · 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

Citations15
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Coal Preparation and UtilizationSame topicCoal Combustion and Slurry ProcessingFrench-language works237,207