MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2529635582 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22705

Effect of silver on gold cyanidation in mixed and segregated sulphidic minerals

2016· article· en· W2529635582 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Muhammad Khalid, Faı̈çal Larachi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Extraction and Bioleaching
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPyriteStibniteChalcopyriteDissolutionSphaleriteSulfide mineralsGold cyanidationChemistryMineralGalenaMineralogyInorganic chemistryCopperCyanide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Gold is mostly found in nature in metallic form and is associated with sulphide minerals and other precious metals, most often silver. Pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and stibnite are the sulphidic minerals investigated in the present gold‐silver cyanidation study by adopting the metal‐sulphide multi‐layer packed‐bed reactor approach. Gold leaching kinetics was enhanced remarkably for the pyrite and chalcopyrite sulphide minerals, with 94.5 % and 85 % recovery respectively. The influence of a bilayer sulphidic mineral system on the dissolution of gold was also investigated with a maximum gold dissolution of 87 % for the pyrite‐chalcopyrite bilayer system. The effect of silver on the dissolution of gold was investigated with the gold associated with sulphidic minerals in an arrangement of mixed as well as segregated mineral layers. Three sets of mineral systems were established: pyrite‐chalcopyrite‐silica, pyrite‐sphalerite‐silica, and pyrite‐stibnite‐silica systems. The addition of silver enhanced the gold dissolution for the pyrite‐sphalerite‐silica system, slightly lessened the gold dissolution with the pyrite‐stibnite‐silica system, and retarded gold dissolution severely in the case of the pyrite‐chalcopyrite‐silica system, irrespective of the dispersion of gold and silver in the same as well as in the segregated mineral layers.

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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.187
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical EngineeringSame topicMetal Extraction and BioleachingFrench-language works237,207