MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2743212506 · doi:10.1038/s41598-017-08506-9

Simultaneous Separation of Actinium and Radium Isotopes from a Proton Irradiated Thorium Matrix

2017· article· en· W2743212506 on OpenAlexaff
Tara Mastren, Valery Radchenko, Allison Owens, Roy Copping, R. A. Boll, Justin Griswold, Saed Mirzadeh, Lance Wyant, Mark Brugh, Jonathan W. Engle, F.M. Nortier, Eva R. Birnbaum, Kevin D. John, Michael E. Fassbender

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicRadioactive element chemistry and processing
Canadian institutionsTRIUMF
FundersLos Alamos National LaboratoryLaboratory Directed Research and DevelopmentNuclear PhysicsOffice of ScienceU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsRadiumRadiochemistryThoriumYield (engineering)ChemistryIrradiationBariumMatrix (chemical analysis)Nuclear fission productIsotopeProtonReagentFission productsMaterials scienceInorganic chemistryUraniumChromatographyPhysicsNuclear physicsPhysical chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A new method has been developed for the isolation of 223,224,225Ra, in high yield and purity, from a proton irradiated 232Th matrix. Herein we report an all-aqueous process using multiple solid-supported adsorption steps including a citrate chelation method developed to remove >99.9% of the barium contaminants by activity from the final radium product. A procedure involving the use of three columns in succession was developed, and the separation of 223,224,225Ra from the thorium matrix was obtained with an overall recovery yield of 91 ± 3%, average radiochemical purity of 99.9%, and production yields that correspond to physical yields based on previously measured excitation functions.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations60
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicRadioactive element chemistry and processingFrench-language works237,207