MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128067941 · doi:10.2298/jsc0307581p

Extraction and separation studies of Ga(III), In(III) and Tl(III) using the neutral organophosphorous extractant, Cyanex-923

2003· article· en· W2128067941 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Suresh D. Pawar, P. M. Dhadke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Serbian Chemical Society · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIndustry Canada
KeywordsChemistryDiluentGalliumStripping (fiber)Extraction (chemistry)Metal ions in aqueous solutionIndiumThalliumMetalIonTolueneSolvationNuclear chemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Inorganic chemistryChromatographyMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The neutral extractant, Cyanes-923 has been used for the extraction and separation of gallium(III), indium(III) and thallium(III) from acidic solution. These metal ions were found to be quantitatively extracted with Cyanex-923 in toluene in the pH range 4.5?5.5, 5.0?6.5 and 1.5?3.0 respectively, and from the organic phase they can be stripped with 2.0 mol dm-3 HNO3, 3.0 mol dm-3 HNO3 and 3.0 mol dm-3 HCl, respectively. The effect of pH equilibration period, diluents, diverse ions and stripping agents on the extraction of Ga(III), In(III) and Tl(III) has been studied. The stroichiometry of the extracted species of these metal ions was determined on the basis of the slope analysis method. The reaction proceed by solvation and the probable extracted species found were [MCl3. 3Cyanex-923]?[where M = Ga(III) or In(III)]?and [HTlCl4. 3Cyanex-923]. Based on these results a sequential procedure for the separation of Ga(III), In(III) and Tl(III) from each other was developed.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations14
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Serbian Chemical SocietySame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207