MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Influence of Texture and Trace Element Composition on Hematite to Wüstite Reduction Rates of Fine Iron ore Fragments

2013· article· en· W2159689833 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent van Hinsberg, Enno Zinngrebe, Stefan Melzer, Sieger van der Laan, Ronald Jonckbloedt

Bibliographic record

VenueISIJ International · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIron and Steelmaking Processes
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHematiteWüstiteMineral redox bufferIron oreMagnetiteMetallurgyGoethiteTexture (cosmology)MineralogyTrace elementSmeltingFugacityPorosityMaterials scienceChemistryOxygenComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reduction of ore is the key process in its conversion to the metal form, and the reducibility of ore fragments is therefore a crucial parameter in smelting operations. At constant oxygen fugacity, reducibility is controlled by the texture of the ore fragments, which determines the transport length from reduction front to fragment interface, and the chemistry of the ore fragments, which impacts element mobility within the crystal lattice. Their relative contribution was studied here for iron-ore reduction by combining compositional analyses and thermo-gravitational reduction experiments on individual ore fragments. Results indicate that despite large, and ore-characteristic differences in chemistry, ore-fragment composition has a negligible impact on reducibility. The large variations among bulk ores; e.g. the start of hematite-to-magnetite reduction varies by over 300°C, is therefore attributable to ore-texture effects. Porous, goethite-dominated ores show the highest reducibility, followed by fractured and layered fragments and finally dense ore fragments.

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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 communication0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueISIJ InternationalSame topicIron and Steelmaking ProcessesFrench-language works237,207