MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2466076534 · doi:10.3390/min6030068

Effect of Particle Size and Grinding Time on Gold Dissolution in Cyanide Solution

2016· article· en· W2466076534 on OpenAlexafffund
Jessica Egan, Claude Bazin, Daniel Hodouin

Bibliographic record

VenueMinerals · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDissolutionParticle sizeGrindingLeaching (pedology)MetallurgyParticle (ecology)Materials scienceGold oreParticle-size distributionCyanideMineralogyChemistryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recovery of gold by ore leaching is influenced by the size of the particles and the chemical environment. The effect of particle size on the dissolution of gold is usually studied using mono-size particles as the gold in solution comes from the ore of a unique leached particle size. This paper proposes a method to estimate the gold dissolution as a function of particle size using a bulk ore sample, i.e., with the dissolved gold coming from the various sizes of particles carried by the ore. The results are consistent with the fact that gold dissolution increases with the decreasing particle size but results also indicate that gold dissolution of the ore within a size interval is not significantly affected by the grinding time used for the ore size reduction. Results also show a good dissolution of the gold contained in the fine-size fractions without oxidation and lead nitrate pre-treatment for an ore that is known to require such pre-treatment.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineralsSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207