MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353951565

Technology Study of Removing Iron from Industrial Borax

2010· article· en· W2353951565 on OpenAlexaff
Jia Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsNickel Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoraxAdsorptionAtomic absorption spectroscopyActivated carbonRecrystallization (geology)MetallurgyCarbon fibersMaterials scienceChemistryComposite materialRaw materialGeologyOrganic chemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Activated carbon adsorption method and recrystallization method were used to remove iron from industrial borax in this paper.The atomic absorption spectrophotometer and visible-infrared spectrometer were used to determine the optimum conditions.The results show that active carbon absorption method can remove iron from the industrial borax.And the optimum conditions of the removal of iron as following: the mass of industrial borax is 4 g,the mass of active carbon is 5 g,temperature is 50 ℃,and stirring time is 1 h.The rate of the removal of iron reaches 93.18%.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.592

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207