MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128276244 · doi:10.1080/01496390600632503

Kinetics of Rare Earth Leaching from a Mangnese‐Removed Weathered Rare‐Earth Mud in Hydrochloric Acid Solutions

2006· article· en· W2128276244 on OpenAlexaff
Ruan Chi, Jing Tian, Guiping Zhu, Yuangui Wu, S. Li, C. Wang, Zhenlu Zhou

Bibliographic record

VenueSeparation Science and Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicGeochemistry and Elemental Analysis
Canadian institutionsAlberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeaching (pedology)ChemistryHydrochloric acidReagentActivation energyManganeseParticle sizeLixiviantKineticsRare earthPorosityInorganic chemistryMineralogySulfuric acidGeologySoil scienceOrganic chemistryPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The kinetics of leaching rare earth from a manganese‐removed weathered rare earth mud (MRW‐RE mud) in hydrochloric acid solutions was investigated in this study as a function of temperature, particle size, and HCl concentration. It was found that the leaching process can be described by a shrinking‐core model, with the apparent activation energy about 10.17 kJ/M. When the concentration of hydrochloric acid was below 4M, the RE leaching rate was controlled by the diffusion of reactants and leaching products through a porous ore. However, when HCl concentration was higher than 4 M, the leaching process was limited by both chemical reaction and reagent diffusion. Based on the experimental results, an empirical equation relating the rate constant of rare earth leaching to the particle size and leaching temperature was established for the purpose of process deign.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations21
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSeparation Science and TechnologySame topicGeochemistry and Elemental AnalysisFrench-language works237,207