MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2501557288

Potash processing in Saskatchewan: a review of process technologies

2003· review· en· W2501557288 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCIM bulletin · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMinerals Flotation and Separation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPotashEvaporiteBrinePotassiumAgricultureEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringNutrientWaste managementGeologyMetallurgyGeochemistryArchaeologyChemistryEngineeringGeographyMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potassium is one of the three basic plant nutrients along with nitrogen and phosphorus. There is no substitute for potassium compounds in agriculture; they are essential to maintain and expand food production. Potash is extracted from buried ancient evaporites by underground or solution mining. This accounts for most of the potassium produced. Another important source is brine from land-locked water bodies, such as the Dead Sea, Salar de Atacama or Great Salt Lake. About 95% of potash produced worldwide is used in agriculture. The rest is found in several other industrial uses, including glass manufacturing, soaps, plastics and pharmaceuticals. Currently, three producers - lmc PCS and Agrium - operate eight conventional and two solution mines in Saskatchewan, five of which run froth flotation circuits, two run heavy media-flotation, two run forced crystallization and one runs natural crystallization.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.306 · 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