MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611933018

Year in Review 2013: Graphite and graphene

2014· article· en· W2611933018 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Siobhan Lismore-Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueIndustrial Minerals · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExtraction and Separation Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphiteInvestment (military)Sri lankaChristian ministryProduction (economics)ChinaPoliticsBusinessTonneNatural resource economicsEngineeringPolitical scienceEconomyAgricultural economicsGeographyMetallurgyEconomicsMaterials scienceWaste managementEnvironmental planningArchaeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lanka's trade ministry approached the Chinese government for investment in its mining and mineral processing sectors, with particular emphasis on mineral sands and graphite. Rishad Bathiudeen, Lanka's Minister for trade and commerce, was quoted as telling China's envoy to Colombo, Wu Jianghao, during a visit to the island in March that Sri Lanka wants to upgrade its mineral sector, and that it was looking to Asia's biggest economy to back its development initiatives. One of Canada's leading graphite exploration companies, Mason Graphite Inc, joined only a handful of juniors in publishing production and cost details of its Lac Guret project in north Quebec. Using IM's graphite prices as the basis for its preliminary economic assessment (PEA), Mason expects to produce a tonne of flake graphite concentrate for $390/tonne which, if realised, puts it in line with the higher-cost Chinese producers. Swiss graphite producer Timcal SA, part of Imerys, has confirmed that it is seriously considering graphene as a market for its graphite products Graphene production is one potential route for natural graphite, as well as synthetic carbon, and this is interesting to us, Dr Sergio Pacheco Benito, development scientist for Timcal, told IM at the ImagineNano Graphene 2013 meeting in Bilbao.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.286
Threshold uncertainty score0.284

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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