MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2769388210 · doi:10.5539/emr.v7n1p10

Quality Improvement of Iron Ore Jasper by Selective Milling

2017· article· en· W2769388210 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erivelto Luís de Souza, Orimar Batista dos Reis, Denise Fonseca Pereira

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Management Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMineral Processing and Grinding
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal de São João del-ReiConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas GeraisFundação Gorceix
KeywordsComminutionIron orePower consumptionMetallurgyQuality (philosophy)Work (physics)Consumption (sociology)Process engineeringPower (physics)MathematicsGrindingCast ironPulp and paper industryEnvironmental scienceMining engineeringEngineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

One of the most important factors during the process of comminution of minerals is their power consumption rate, which is determined by calculating the WI (work index), which in short is to analyze the amount of kWh consumed per ton of material, to reach a certain particle size and achieve the desired. Along with the quality of the ore is defined and use the classification of the ore. Ores of jaspelite type, high hardness, and with lower iron content 60% with silica content above 10.5%, tends to be considered economically unsuitable for merger cases in the Brazilian market. The work presented here consists of a technique that acts by transforming this type of ore at an acceptable quality product and with a lower power consumption than the previously calculated by WI analysis. The procedure presented here recovers a quantity of more than 75% by weight, taking an ore 56% Fe, for an average content of 65% SiO2 and lowering the 10% to 4.5%. Although reducing by 50% the amount of phosphorus present. The procedure presented here using known methods, but with a variation with respect to the operation, which gives you innovative character, acting together with a selective screening.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Management ResearchSame topicMineral Processing and GrindingFrench-language works237,207