MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153540484 · doi:10.1002/bit.10136

Comparison of biooxidation with carbon dioxide assimilation during bacterial growth on ferrous ion or elemental sulfur

2001· letter· en· W2153540484 on OpenAlexaff
Hector M. Lizama, Przemysław Zieliński, L. D. Kerby, C. C. Abraham

Bibliographic record

VenueBiotechnology and Bioengineering · 2001
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Extraction and Bioleaching
Canadian institutionsTeck (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFerrousChemistrySulfurCarbon dioxideOxygenSulfideRespirometerBacterial growthSulfur dioxideCarbon fibersInorganic chemistryBacteriaMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomass and oxygen uptake activity profiles of a mixed bioleaching culture were studied and compared at various temperatures. Bacteria were grown on ferrous ion or elemental sulfur in a Micro-Oxymax respirometer apparatus that allowed measurement of both oxygen consumption and carbon dioxide assimilation. Balanced growth was observed between 10 degrees C and 35 degrees C, with an optimum at 30 degrees C, on both energy sources. No significant growth was observed at the lowest temperature used, 5 degrees C, or at the highest temperature used, 40 degrees C. The oxygen to carbon dioxide molar yield was 50:1 when growing on ferrous ion but only 17:1 when growing on elemental sulfur. Upon transfer from a sulfide ore to a new energy source, greater numbers in the inoculum reduced the duration of the lag phase. Lag phase duration was also reduced by proximity to the optimum growth temperature. A longer lag phase decreased the achievable growth rate of the cells exponentially, significantly affecting biooxidation activity.

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)0.001
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiotechnology and BioengineeringSame topicMetal Extraction and BioleachingFrench-language works237,207