MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2574781597 · doi:10.1063/1.4974408

Atmospheric leaching of nickel and cobalt from nickel saprolite ores using the Starved Acid Leaching Technology

2017· article· en· W2574781597 on OpenAlexaff
David Dreisinger

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP conference proceedings · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSaproliteNickelLeaching (pedology)SmeltingMetallurgyCobaltHydroxideEnvironmental scienceChemistryMaterials scienceInorganic chemistrySoil water

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is great potential to recover nickel from below cut-off grade nickel saprolite ores using the Starved Acid Leach Technology (SALT). Nickel saprolite ores are normally mined as feed to Fe-Ni smelters or Ni matte smelting operations. The smelting processes typically require high Ni cut-off grades of 1.5 to 2.2% Ni, depending on the operation. These very high cutoff grades result in a significant portion of the saprolite profile being regarded as “waste” and hence having little to no value. The below cut-off grade (waste) material can be processed by atmospheric acid leaching with “starvation” levels of acid addition. The leached nickel and cobalt may be recovered as a mixed hydroxide (or alternate product). The mixed hydroxide may be added to the saprolite smelting operation feed system to increase the nickel production of the smelter or may be refined separately. The technical development of the SALT process will be described along with an economic summary. The SALT process has great potential to treat many Indonesian Nickel ores that are too low a grade for current technology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP conference proceedingsSame topicExtraction and Separation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207