MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605519892 · doi:10.1002/cjce.22870

Impact of silver sulphide on gold cyanidation with conductive sulphide minerals

2017· article· en· W2605519892 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Muhammad Khalid, Faı̈çal Larachi, A. Adnot

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Chemical Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMetal Extraction and Bioleaching
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaBarrick Gold Corporation
KeywordsStibnitePyriteSphaleriteGold cyanidationDissolutionChalcopyriteChemistryCupriteAntimonySulfide mineralsInorganic chemistryX-ray photoelectron spectroscopyMineralMineralogyCopperChemical engineeringCyanide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gold is mostly found in metallic form, while silver exists in various mineral forms. Pyrite, chalcopyrite, sphalerite, and stibnite were the sulphidic minerals investigated for the effect of silver sulphide on gold cyanidation. Four sets of mineral systems, pyrite‐silica, chalcopyrite‐silica, sphalerite‐silica, and stibnite‐silica, were established to investigate the effect of silver sulphide. Silver sulphide addition promoted gold dissolution for the pyrite‐silica and sphalerite‐silica systems. The gold dissolution was retarded with the chalcopyrite‐silica and stibnite‐silica systems, irrespective of the dispersion of gold and silver sulphide in the mineral as well as in the quartz layer. The surface characterization of the gold particles was attempted by using X‐ray photoelectron spectroscopy (XPS) in order to identify the surface obstructing species. XPS analysis showed that the passivation layers of silver sulphide (Ag 2 S), Cu 2 O/Cu(OH) 2 , and antimony oxide (Sb 2 O 5 ) might form on the surface of goldparticles by the simultaneous dissolution of silver sulphide as well as sulphide minerals, resulting in the retardation of gold dissolution.

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 score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations7
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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