MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754931635 · doi:10.1080/03719553.2017.1376141

The Elkington specimen of cathode copper

2017· article· en· W2754931635 on OpenAlexaff
A.E. Wraith, P. J. Mackey, R.W. Horton

Bibliographic record

VenueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and Metallurgy · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicCultural Heritage Materials Analysis
Canadian institutionsMerck Canada Inc. (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCopperCathodeImpurityAnodeMetallurgyMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)MineralogyChemistryElectrodeEnvironmental chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The specimen of cathode copper dated 1880 in the Percy Collection of the Science Museum, London was produced in the world’s first copper electrorefinery located at Pembrey in South Wales, based upon the only known application of jar-cell technology patented by James Elkington in 1869. Drill samples were taken and assayed by ICP-MS for a total of 23 impurity elements, of which 12 were considered for the study. Their average aggregate value of about 20 ppm compares very favourably with about 23 ppm for the same impurities in typical modern cathode. The average silver assay, 2.9 ppm Ag, is very low by modern standards, indicating an anode low in silver, possibly associated with low levels of Pb and Sb and relatively high levels of As and Bi. This unusual combination of anode impurities coupled with exceptional cathode purity is discussed in relation to the contemporary conditions in the Welsh copper industry.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.017

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy Transactions of the Institutions of Mining and MetallurgySame topicCultural Heritage Materials AnalysisFrench-language works237,207