MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2328367083 · doi:10.1021/je5004252

Vapor–Liquid Equilibria for the ZnSO<sub>4</sub>–H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>–H<sub>2</sub>O and MgSO<sub>4</sub>–H<sub>2</sub>SO<sub>4</sub>–H<sub>2</sub>O Systems at (30, 60, 90, and 101.3) kPa

2014· article· en· W2328367083 on OpenAlexaff
Geng Li, Yan Zhang, Edouard Asselin, Zhibao Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical & Engineering Data · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemical Engineering
TopicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous Solutions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersMinistry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of ChinaNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsChemistryAnalytical Chemistry (journal)Chromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vapor–liquid equilibria (boiling points) data for the ZnSO 4 –H 2 SO 4 –H 2 O and the MgSO 4 –H 2 SO 4 –H 2 O systems were determined by the quasi-static ebulliometric method at (30, 60, 90, and 101.3) kPa. The boiling points of the ZnSO 4 –H 2 O and the ZnSO 4 –H 2 SO 4 –H 2 O systems were used to regress new chemical model parameters with the average absolute deviation of only 0.08 K. The model was verified by comparing its predictions of the solubility of zinc sulfate in water from (273.15 to 310.15) K and the activity of water in zinc sulfate solution at 298.15 K with literature data. Furthermore, the distributions of the ZnSO 4 (aq) (ZnSO 4 neutral species), Zn 2+, MgSO 4 (aq) (MgSO 4 neutral species) and Mg 2+ species were predicted. The ZnSO 4 −H 2 SO 4 −H 2 O system speciation provided a thermodynamic basis for the empirically optimized zinc sulfate concentrations currently employed in the Zn electrowinning industry.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical & Engineering DataSame topicChemical and Physical Properties in Aqueous SolutionsFrench-language works237,207