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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.675
Threshold uncertainty score0.367

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
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