MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533266087 · doi:10.2298/jmmb150823024w

Nickel, copper and cobalt coalescence in copper cliff converter slag

2016· article· en· W2533266087 on OpenAlexaff
Anton Wolf, Aleksandar M. Mitrašinović

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mining and Metallurgy Section B Metallurgy · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetallurgical Processes and Thermodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFerrosiliconCopperMetallurgySiliconNickelMaterials scienceCobaltCobalt extraction techniquesCoalescence (physics)Slag (welding)Pig ironLime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this investigation is to assess the effect of various additives on coalescence of nickel, copper and cobalt from slags generated during nickel extraction. The analyzed fluxes were silica and lime while examined reductants were pig iron, ferrosilicon and copper-silicon compound. Slag was settled at the different holding temperatures for various times in conditions that simulated the industrial environment. The newly formed matte and slag were characterized by their chemical composition and morphology. Silica flux generated higher partition coefficients for nickel and copper than the addition of lime. Additives used as reducing agents had higher valuable metal recovery rates and corresponding partition coefficients than fluxes. Microstructural studies showed that slag formed after adding reductants consisted of primarily fayalite, with some minute traces of magnetite as the secondary phase. Addition of 5 wt% of pig iron, ferrosilicon and copper-silicon alloys favored the formation of a metallized matte which increased Cu, Ni and Co recoveries. Addition of copper-silicon alloys with low silicon content was efficient in copper recovery but coalescence of the other metals was low. Slag treated with the ferrosilicon facilitated the highest cobalt recovery while copper-silicon alloys with silicon content above 10 wt% resulted in high coalescence of nickel and copper, 87 % and 72 % respectively.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.528
Threshold uncertainty score0.838

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mining and Metallurgy Section B MetallurgySame topicMetallurgical Processes and ThermodynamicsFrench-language works237,207