MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From “strategic” tungsten to “green” neodymium: A century of critical metals at a glance

2014· article· en· W2141008975 on OpenAlexaff
Anton R. Chakhmouradian, Martin Smith, Jindřích Kynický

Bibliographic record

VenueOre Geology Reviews · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeochemistryAntimonyGeologyTungstenMetallurgyMaterials scienceMineralogyEarth science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relative criticality of mineral commodities is evaluated using a wide range of parameters and in different contexts (e.g., from the standpoint of their importance to national security, or to a specific industrial application), which explains the multiplicity of classification schemes and variations in terminology applied to these commodities in the literature, media and government reports. The core group of critical metals, listed alphabetically, includes: antimony, beryllium, chromium, cobalt, gallium, germanium, indium, lithium, niobium, platinoids, rare-earth elements (REE, including yttrium), tantalum and tungsten. The present retrospect briefly describes the emergence of critical metals as a distinct resource type and the evolution of society's perception of these commodities over the past 100 years.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.013
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0000.002
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.266 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations124
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOre Geology ReviewsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207