MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2513976145

Supply Situation Report: Not so boron

2013· article· en· W2513976145 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhan Lismore-Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTonneBoraxBoronQuarter (Canadian coin)Agricultural economicsProduction (economics)Agricultural scienceBusinessEnvironmental scienceEngineeringGeographyWaste managementArchaeologyRaw materialEconomicsPhysicsChemistry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Neither company will reveal how much it produces, but Rio Tinto said in its Q3 2012 results that Borates production was 12% lower than the third quarter of 2011, in response to current market conditions. However, this also included the companys' Argentinian assets, the sale of which was completed in August this year. Argentina has historically contributed around 4% of Rio Tinto borate production, the company said. In 2011 Rio Tinto produced 504,000 tonnes borates. 4% of this figure leaves roughly 483,840 tonnes of borates out of the US. Of the 2011 figure, 630,000 tonnes were mined in Argentina (up 30,000 tonnes from 2010); 120,000 tonnes in Bolivia (up 23,000 tonnes); 480,000 tonnes in Chile (down 24,000 tonnes) and 370,000 tonnes in Peru (up 77,000 tonnes) (see pie chart). Rio Tinto Minerals reviews each of its operations regularly to ensure a good fit with business strategy, Le Page explained. A decision was made to divest Borax Argentina because RTM focuses on large-scale, long-life mines with expandable operations like our Boron operation, he added.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.253

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0760.022

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndustrial MineralsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207